Why the little things matter.

[feuervogel]

Once upon a discussion with my libertarian now-ex-boyfriend, he told me that I shouldn't get so upset over "the little things," like "that's so lame" or the eleventy-millionth depiction of bisexual women as slutty, indecisive, or outright evil, because ... I don't know, I guess because sharia exists, or something. The Real Problems, as defined by a white, middle-class, straight, cis man, because bisexual women don't get to define our own problems, I guess.

sohotrightnow has this excellent post on why little things matter.

Do not ever forget that it started small, that the Holocaust was merely the logical conclusion of the gradual devaluing and dehumanizing of large swaths of people -- some people claim that focusing on microaggressions and trying to end them is reductio ad absurdum; I'd go in a different direction and call the Holocaust an increscio ad absurdum: a completely logical series of steps from one degree of devaluing and dehumanizing to the next, on up to the most horrifying and completely logical conclusion. But don't forget either that there were a lot of people, along the way, who did fight, who didn't simply accept the tiny little ways their society had told them, day in and day out, for their entire lives, that certain lives were worth less than others, that certain people were less human than others. Don't use the latter fact to write off the former, because if more people had spoken up from the beginning, if more people had examined their assumptions and their language and the casual everyday ways they devalued and dehumanized the undesirable, maybe the more dramatic actions of the Righteous wouldn't have been necessary. But don't let the former cause you to lose hope, to think that there is nothing you can possibly do in the face of widely-held, systemically-enforced, popularly-approved and -perpetuated injustice. And by God, don't let it be an excuse to do nothing, to ignore the microaggressions because there are "real" problems, "real" injustices: because -- I know I am saying this over and over again, but seriously -- if more people had stopped and examined the small injustices they were committing or simply ignoring from the beginning, there may not have been a need for a few people to give up their lives trying to stop huge injustices.

And as far as the casual throwing around of "lame" as a derogatory term, who does it hurt to make the effort not to use words others find offensive? Ask yourself, if someone said "that's so gay," would it piss you off? Would it add to the hundreds of papercuts of society-wide injustice perpetrated against the LGBT* community? If yes, then STOP USING LAME as a replacement for gay in that sense.

Comments

[thegreyghost.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I caught it, but I just seriously believe that "lame" is not a slur. My whole thing is that I'm not in favor of ejecting benign adjectives from the vocabulary just because they can also apply to people.

[feuervogel]

And I am in favor of not being a bigoted asshole.

[thegreyghost.livejournal.com]

Agreed. What synonyms would be acceptable that carry the same meaning while being sensitive to disabled people?

[feuervogel]

Terrible, awful, pathetic?

[thegreyghost.livejournal.com]

Dunno if I'd use those words in the same context... The closest I came to was "impotent", but that could be insensitive to a much larger population than the disabled. :p

Also, here's what I'd like to do (and I know it's impossible): Take the disabled people who are genuinely offended by "lame" and compare them next to the population of disabled people who really don't care. Then, because their opinion is also important, ask the group that doesn't care what they feel about the ones that do. That would all be very interesting data.

[feuervogel]

The marginalized can be unwitting participants in their own marginalization by perpetuating the dominant narrative which marginalizes them.

[thegreyghost.livejournal.com]

So...my opinion is discounted because I (although, we) don't share their experience... But their opinion is discounted as well? Isn't this then one group telling one group how they feel the other should feel instead of just letting them feel how they genuinely feel?

[kirin]

Well, regardless of that, I wouldn't want to discount the feelings of the people who are offended just because there's a slightly larger group of people who aren't... that just sounds like a tyranny of the majority on a smaller scale.

[thegreyghost.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I just don't want to cut off our nose to spite our face. Or suggest insensitivity when it's not really present.

[feuervogel]

Argument by analogy:

Nigger only offends a minority of people, so I can use it if I want.

Cunt only offends a minority of people, so I can use it if I want.

Paki only offends a minority of people, so I can use it if I want.

Towelhead only offends a minority of people, so I can use it if I want.

Gook only offends a minority of people, so I can use it if I want.

Wop only offends a minority of people, so I can use it if I want.

Spic only offends a minority of people, so I can use it if I want.

Do you see the problem here? Actual disabled people like Leora are telling you in so many words that "lame" offends them. You say, well lame only offends a minority of people, so I can use it if I want.

And that is outright assholery.

[leora.livejournal.com]

First off, that would be a really badly designed experiment. You'd need to test each term against the community to which it applies, which is not "the disabled community". You'd want to ask the people who are lame whether or not they are offended by the use of the word "lame". It really doesn't matter whether or not the majority of people who have chronic pain find the use of the term "lame" offensive or not. It doesn't apply to them unless they are also lame. You would want to test "crazy" and "insane" against those who have mental health problems.

On a side note, to the best of my knowledge the majority of lame people I know are offended by the use of the term "lame" in that context, however, that is a very small sample and it is obviously biased by me knowing them.

I didn't used to be, even though I am lame, but now I know it hurts a friend of mine who is lame, and I also realize it reinforces the mental associations that physical disabilities equate to unrelated other deficiencies, and I have no desire to strengthen that meme. The encounters one gets with the public are too annoying and too stupid already. Disabled people regularly have people ask the person they are with things like, "So, what does s/he want?" Or they talk loudly and slowly to them when there is no issue with hearing. In general, there is an assumption of a lack of sexuality, a lack of cognitive power, and a lack of general ability that tends to go with having a visible disability despite there being no connection to those issues from that disability. The term "lame" used to mean issues with functioning beyond the physical only helps to reinforce that unconscious faulty association. Invisible disabilities have other issues. And mental health has too large a host of issues associated with it for me to even get started.

[thegreyghost.livejournal.com]

Here's all I can really say: This is the first time I've ever heard of the term "lame" used--or received, for that matter--in that context. So while I'm open to it, it's going to be a while before I'm less "Wait, what?" about it.

[leora.livejournal.com]

That's understandable. Most young people know a lot more gay people than they know lame people.

[thegreyghost.livejournal.com]

I'm 32 (still considered young...?) but that is correct.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Yes, that was roughly the age range I had assumed you to be when I had used the term "young". Actually, I had assumed you were slightly older than that, but only by a couple of years and without much thought to it as it was a fuzzy age-range assumption.