First, out of curiosity and practical interest, which disability? Views on these matters tend to cluster and I'm not savvy on every disability communities views. If I'm making software for such a community, I will not use the word disable.
Second, My post(s) were consciously written with the possibility I was talking to a disabled person in mind.
My visceral reaction to an implicit comparison between disable/disabled and master/slave being made is of annoyance and trepidation given what happened with master/slave and given the immediate replies (not from you) that somebody who DIDN'T want to get rid of terms like disable/disabled simply weren't interested in their users comfort. You had already influenced people on HN before I made my post, you already had the ball rolling.
I started out with an aspergers diagnosis, that became disused in medical circles, and is now considered offensive in some circles. Then I was an autistic person, that became offensive in some circles, and got redefined to person with autism, which also became offensive in some circles. There is literally no non-offensive way to refer to my own disability presently. I have seen various other redefinition of slurs, euphemisms, and medical terms being changed around due to influences from various groups and half the time these groups are a minority of disabled people of some sort.
Disable/disabled are good BECAUSE they evoke disability. This promotes familiarity with the concept of disability, and notably, that disabled people can't do things which is a surprisingly difficult thing for many people to understand. Conversely, disable/disabled makes a poignant analogy for what happens in these programs. I have a self-interest in making it so that more stigmas do not enter peoples head, I am so exhausted by the very concept of disability being a magnet for stigma, I believe such stigma causes normals to behave in bizarre ways.
Thank you for this reply. Apologies if any of this is short, I’m tired and going to bed quickly but wanted to acknowledge this before I forget.
> I started out with an aspergers diagnosis, that became disused in medical circles, and is now considered offensive in some circles. Then I was an autistic person, that became offensive in some circles, and got redefined to person with autism, which also became offensive in some circles. There is literally no non-offensive way to refer to my own disability presently. I have seen various other redefinition of slurs, euphemisms, and medical terms being changed around due to influences from various groups and half the time these groups are a minority of disabled people of some sort.
I’m sensitive to this too (as noted below I’m also autistic). We also have the misfortune of being something which the diagnostic criteria defines as external to us, so we get little say in even who we are or what we experience. That’s all the more reason to be skeptical when we feel someone is speaking for us.
> First, out of curiosity and practical interest, which disability?
Also autistic, and ADHD. Chronic pain and fatigue that I don’t even know what’s going on.
> Views on these matters tend to cluster and I'm not savvy on every disability communities views. If I'm making software for such a community, I will not use the word disable.
I really feel like I should re-emphasize that I was expressing my own feelings regarding the specific words. There are many disabled people who don’t like using the term “disabled” as a software state, and I’ll just say that you should be able to find that information if you’re looking for it. My personal negative reaction to the “disable” action is more a trauma response to verbs that conjure abuse. That is definitely more personal to intersecting experiences for me.
> Second, My post(s) were consciously written with the possibility I was talking to a disabled person in mind.
I see that now but to be honest it really didn’t feel that way at first. In hindsight I think I responded to you the same way. I appreciate that we came to this point though.
> You had already influenced people on HN before I made my post, you already had the ball rolling.
Maybe but I doubt that I influenced them much, other than making a bunch of people mad at me. All of these conversations have been going on well before this. My comment was clearly taken as suggesting language use, but I really sincerely was just saying how I personally react to the language. It’s a real challenge for me to always remember that expressing an opinion might be taken as a directive, and I forgot that in this instance.
> Disable/disabled are good BECAUSE they evoke disability[…]
There’s a lot in your last paragraph that I want to engage but I’m honestly too tired to do so tonight. I wanted to make this effort to respond. If you want to keep talking I’m here for it, but HN doesn’t make days old threads easy to find. But I’m easy to find around the net. Take care. And thank you again for a good genuine response to this. It made my day to see it.
Second, My post(s) were consciously written with the possibility I was talking to a disabled person in mind.
My visceral reaction to an implicit comparison between disable/disabled and master/slave being made is of annoyance and trepidation given what happened with master/slave and given the immediate replies (not from you) that somebody who DIDN'T want to get rid of terms like disable/disabled simply weren't interested in their users comfort. You had already influenced people on HN before I made my post, you already had the ball rolling.
I started out with an aspergers diagnosis, that became disused in medical circles, and is now considered offensive in some circles. Then I was an autistic person, that became offensive in some circles, and got redefined to person with autism, which also became offensive in some circles. There is literally no non-offensive way to refer to my own disability presently. I have seen various other redefinition of slurs, euphemisms, and medical terms being changed around due to influences from various groups and half the time these groups are a minority of disabled people of some sort.
Disable/disabled are good BECAUSE they evoke disability. This promotes familiarity with the concept of disability, and notably, that disabled people can't do things which is a surprisingly difficult thing for many people to understand. Conversely, disable/disabled makes a poignant analogy for what happens in these programs. I have a self-interest in making it so that more stigmas do not enter peoples head, I am so exhausted by the very concept of disability being a magnet for stigma, I believe such stigma causes normals to behave in bizarre ways.