We have decided some brain quirks are disorders (and get accommodations, as is compassionate), whilst others are flaws (and get slurs). But no one picks their hardware. You cannot earn a better prefrontal cortex or deserve a calmer amygdala. Nor does one get to pick the environment they are born in, which will inform their choices later in life. Even the capacity to “learn better” is a roll of the dice, some brains start the race with sprinting shoes, others with lead weights.
So when we call someone stupid, lazy or insane we are not describing a choice, but simply announcing which kinds of unlucky we’ve decided are worthy of scorn.
How can you be even 1% certain that these words are being used to refer to neurodivergent people? You cannot, at all. Not even 1%.
If I am wrong, the result is that everyone gets treated with more kindness.
If you are wrong, people who cannot help themselves get treated with cruelty.
If you are wrong, billions of people police their language for absolutely no reason and have to figure out new ways to express an identical concept. And they will. And this time it might even have worse baggage.
If I am wrong, all humans who ever existed talk wrong, but won’t change for you anyway.
I command not for policing of language. I put forth the request for people to examine if shaming and name calling impacts behavior towards a more desirable outcome.
(Spoilers: It does not)
So you state directly that essentially all insults are hateful toward neuro atypical people, and that’s not policing language?
It’s 100% policing language and basically claiming standard insults to be bigotry of some level. Obviously, insults don’t fix anything but they are a basic part of human language. Anything you substitute for them can be compared to someone with a disability of some kind and there is no end to self censorship in the world you are asking for. It literally helps nothing even if you manage to ban these words, and also, you would never be able to manage banning them.
The question is not whether every insult is aimed at the neurodivergent, it is whether we accept that our language, carelessly or maliciously deployed, reinforces a world where those already struggling are further ground beneath contempt.
You assert that policing language is futile, that insults are a “basic part of human language,”. This is the refuge of those who mistake tradition for truth. If language is merely a tool, then let us ask: what does it build? Does it foster understanding, or does it erect walls? Does it invite reflection, or does it demand submission?
You say, “It literally helps nothing even if you manage to ban these words.” But who, pray tell, is asking for bans? I am not advocating for the eradication of words, I am advocating for the examination of their purpose. You are correct that words are ever shifting and changing. Sever the verbal head of one hydra and witness as two new nouns emerge. This is precisely the reason for my conviction.
“100% policing language”? It is 100% asking for accountability. If you insist on wielding words as weapons, at least own the carnage. But do not pretend that this reflects anything but a commitment to a cruel world.
Yikes dude. I hate it when people say to touch grass, but if you think insults rank even 1000th on the list of societal problems, you probably need to touch grass.
Carnage. I gotta go take a walk just thinking about what it must be like to say that about general, unspecific insults.
This begs the question how I’d negatively assert outcomes and efforts if I am not to use negative language to describe it lest it’d be cruel.
You may communicate without violence.
https://www.cnvc.org/
Hrm so I searched around that site a bit, and I genuinely cannot find them ever discussing that. Maybe it’s in some of the videos (a very poor choice of design for something that supposedly is about more inclusive communication) but mostly it seems to be seminares and workshops.
But just to ask the general question, I still need to make a negative assessment, yes? I still say “worst”, not “++ungood”. So I would also call something “stupid”, not “unsmart”?
Intuitively just from the title, of course nonviolent communication ought to be a thing, but that’s distinct from a discussion as to whether all uses of a word should take in account all other uses of the same word, no? E.g. stupid person vs stupid move, or rape as a crime vs rape as a plant.