Antiblackness Links
Bell, 10 (Christopher M. Bell was Disabilities Studies Fellow at the Center of Human Policy, Law, and Disability Studies at Syracuse University (deceased), “Introducing White Disability Studies A Modest Proposal, The Disability Studies Reader, edited by Lennard J. Davis, p.275, https://uniteyouthdublin.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/lennard_davis_the_disability_studies_reader_secbookzz-org.pdf )
Bubba Gumps matter-of-fact rejoinder to Dorian Gray is, I think, indicative of the whiteness of Disability Studies in its present incarnation. The fact that Disability Studies is marketed as such when it is in actuality an artificial (read: limited and limiting) version of the field does nothing to prevent it from being understood as Disability Studies, which is what Bubba, by extension, apprised Dorian of. I contend that it is disingenuous to keep up the pretense that the field is an inclusive one when it is not. On that score, I would like to concede the failure of Disability Studies to engage issues of race and ethnicity in a substantive capacity, thereby entrenching whiteness as its constitutive underpinning. In short, I want to call a shrimp a shrimp and acknowledge Disability Studies for what it is, White Disability Studies. In contradistinction to Disability Studies, While Disability Studies recognizes its tendency to whitewash disability history, ontology and phenomenology. White Disability Studies, while not wholeheartedly excluding people of color from its critique, by and large focuses on the work of white individuals and is itself largely produced by a corps of white scholars and activists. White Disability Studies envisions nothing ill-advised with this leaning because it is innocently done and far too difficult to remedy. A synoptic review of some of the literature and related aspects of Disability Studies bears this out.
Disability studies constantly ignores race, which should frame disability
Bell, 10 (Christopher M. Bell was Disabilities Studies Fellow at the Center of Human Policy, Law, and Disability Studies at Syracuse University (deceased), “Introducing White Disability Studies A Modest Proposal, The Disability Studies Reader, edited by Lennard J. Davis, p.275, https://uniteyouthdublin.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/lennard_davis_the_disability_studies_reader_secbookzz-org.pdf )
If Disability Studies as a field had taken a reflexive look at itself at some point, particularly with regard to its failings in examining issues of race and ethnicity, there might not be such a glaring dearth of disability-related scholarship by and about disabled people of color. As it stands, Disability Studies has a tenuous relationship with race and ethnicity: while the field readily acknowledges its debt to and inspiration by inquiries such as Black Studies, its efforts at addressing intersections between disability, race, and ethnicity are, at best, wanting. Disability Studies claims to examine the experiences of a vast number of disabled people, yet the form that representation takes is, far too often, a white one. This is by no means a sporadic occurrence. Quite the contrary, the slights occur habitually and, as the preceding examples prove, in various contexts, from published works to conferences. I think it is essential to illuminate the fragile relationship between disability, race, and ethnicity in extant Disability Studies, arguing not so much for a sea-change in this formulation, rather for a more definitive and accurate identification of the happening.
AT Ableist Language Insert apology you’re going to pretend is genuine -
Ableist words are also used to describe ignorance. We’ll stop saying it but it wasn’t used in an ableist way
Watson, 14 (Rebecca Watson, previous podcast host, travels around the globe giving speeches on science, tech, art, skepticism, and critical thinking; “Insults, Slurs, and Stupidity”; Skepchick, a collection of works focused on science and critical thinking; 02/15/2014; http://skepchick.org/2014/02/insults-slurs-and-stupidity/ ) This card also might be pretty offensive in a few other ways, please read through it first.
There is currently a, er, lively discussion happening in the comments of Surly Amy and Elyse’s DDoS Valentine post over the use of words like “stupid” and “idiot” to describe people who are ignorant. A few commenters are arguing that those words are triggering for people with mental disabilities and so they should not be used. I disagree, and as of right now I’m content allowing words like “stupid” to continue to be used across the Skepchick Network. I might consider requesting that writers include a content note at the top of posts that contain that language, but I’m still not really sure it’s necessary at this point. There are a few points in this discussion that I felt it necessary to highlight. First of all, if you are a person who is triggered by the word “stupid,” you have my immense sympathy. Last night I was considering this discussion while watching Netflix, and I must have heard the word “stupid” or a synonym at least once every ten minutes. Even in conversation with friends, it happens near-constantly: my stupid cat woke me up with his butt in my face. The stupid PS3 controller isn’t working. The stupid me forgot to take the cloth bags from the car into the grocery store. I’ve been triggered once before and it was extremely unpleasant, to the point that I laid in bed in the fetal position crying for a few hours. A person who is triggered by words like “stupid” and “idiot” must quite seriously live a horrific life dominated by fear and pain, and I sincerely hope they get therapeutic help. I have no doubt that there are such people, just as there are probably people who are triggered by other insults. I could certainly imagine a person with a newly installed colostomy bag being triggered by words like “shitty.” Perhaps someone who was orally raped is triggered when someone says that something “sucks.” Maybe someone with a cleft palate is triggered when the word “ugly” is used to describe everything from faces to personalities to carpets. And if I was friends with any of those people and I used one of those words in their presence and they took me aside and told me about their pain, I would absolutely avoid saying those words in their presence. I would not, though, avoid saying those words elsewhere, because those words are not slurs. Compare any of them to the word “kike,” for instance. “Kike” is a word that has no other usage besides dehumanizing and marginalizing Jewish people. Yes, it has been thrown at me, a gentile through and through, but even then it was meant to insult some perceived Jewishness in my person. The word “retard” has been thrown at me, a person with no developmental disabilities, but it is quite obviously always meant to shame me by aligning me with people with disabilities. The word “cunt” is thrown at men, but every time it is meant to unambiguously connect them with the disgusting, lesser vagina. “Stupid,” on the other hand, accurately describes a thing or a person or an action that is foolish, ignorant, or vapid, and we cannot drop useful words like that from our vocabulary entirely because some people find them upsetting. Elyse’s valentine specifically addressed people who were incapable of learning that silencing us is impossible – a fool’s errand, if you will. The word “stupid” and its synonyms must be used to make that clear, even if those words are also used to insult people with developmental disabilities. So yes, just as we won’t stop using the word “creep” to accurately describe people and behaviors that we deem “creepy,” we won’t stop using words like “stupid” to accurately describe people and behaviors that we deem ignorant or foolish.*
Not a voting issue – in round education, cross-x, and out of round discussion solve, we won’t do it again
Roskoski and Peabody, 91 (Matthew Roskoski, and Joe Peabody, debate coaches and former debaters writing on theory issues, critiques, and risk management; “A Linguistic and Philosophical Critique of Language “Arguments””; Florida State University; 1991; accessed 07/31/2015; http://debate.uvm.edu/Library/DebateTheoryLibrary/Roskoski&Peabody-LangCritiques )
*edited
The battle against {offensive speech} will be fought most effectively through persuasive and creative educational leadership rather than through punishment and coercion... The sense of a community of scholars, an island of reason and tolerance, is the pervasive ethos. But that ethos should be advanced with education, not coercion. It should be the dominant voice of the university within the marketplace of ideas; but it should not preempt that marketplace. (Smolla 224-225).1 We emphatically concur. It is our position that a debater who feels strongly enough about a given language "argument" ought to actualize that belief through interpersonal conversation rather than through a plea for censorship and coercion. Each debater in a given round has three minutes of cross-examination time during which he or she [they] may engage the other team in a dialogue about the ramifications of the language the opposition has just used. Additionally even given the efficacy of Rich Edwards' efficient tabulation program, there will inevitably be long periods between rounds during which further dialogue can take place. It is our position that interpersonal transactions will be more effective methods of raising consciousness about the negative ramifications of language. These interactions can achieve the goals intended by language "arguments" without the attendant infringements upon the freedom of speech.
They don’t address the root of the problem, meaning the impact will be recreated
Roskoski and Peabody, 91 (Matthew Roskoski, and Joe Peabody, debate coaches and former debaters writing on theory issues, critiques, and risk management; “A Linguistic and Philosophical Critique of Language “Arguments””; Florida State University; 1991; accessed 07/31/2015; http://debate.uvm.edu/Library/DebateTheoryLibrary/Roskoski&Peabody-LangCritiques )
Language "Arguments" Are Counterproductive There are several levels upon which language "arguments" are actually counterproductive. We will discuss the quiescence effect, deacademization, and publicization. The quiescence effect is explained by Strossen when she writes "the censorship approach is diversionary. It makes it easier for communities to avoid coming to grips with less convenient and more expensive, but ultimately more meaningful approaches" (Strossen 561). Essentially, the argument is that allowing the restriction of language we find offensive substitutes for taking actions to check the real problems that generated the language. Previously, we have argued that the language advocates have erroneously reversed the causal relationship between language and reality. We have defended the thesis that reality shapes language, rather than the obverse. Now we will also contend that to attempt to solve a problem by editing the language which is symptomatic of that problem will generally trade off with solving the reality which is the source of the problem. There are several reasons why this is true. The first, and most obvious, is that we may often be fooled into thinking that language "arguments" have generated real change. As Graddol and Swan observe, "when compared with larger social and ideological struggles, linguistic reform may seem quite a trivial concern," further noting "there is also the danger that effective change at this level is mistaken for real social change" (Graddol & Swan 195). The second reason is that the language we find objectionable can serve as a signal or an indicator of the corresponding objectionable reality. The third reason is that restricting language only limits the overt expressions of any objectionable reality, while leaving subtle and hence more dangerous expressions unregulated. Once we drive the objectionable idea underground it will be more difficult to identify, more difficult to root out, more difficult to counteract, and more likely to have its undesirable effect. The fourth reason is that objectionable speech can create a "backlash" effect that raises the consciousness of people exposed to the speech. Strossen observes that "ugly and abominable as these expressions are, they undoubtably have had the beneficial result of raising social consciousness about the underlying societal problem..." (560). The second major reason why language "arguments" are counterproductive is that they contribute to deacademization. In the context of critiquing the Hazelwood decision, Hopkins explains the phenomenon: To escape censorship, therefore, student journalists may eschew school sponsorship in favor of producing their own product. In such a case, the result would almost certainly be lower quality of high school journalism... The purpose of high school journalism, however, is more than learning newsgathering, writing, and editing skills. It is also to learn the role of the press in society; it is to teach responsibility as well as freedom. (Hopkins 536). Hyde & Fishman further explain that to protect students from offensive views, is to deprive them of the experiences through which they "attain intellectual and moral maturity and become self-reliant" (Hyde & Fishman 1485). The application of these notions to the debate round is clear and relevant. If language "arguments" become a dominant trend, debaters will not change their attitudes. Rather they will manifest their attitudes in non-debate contexts. Under these conditions, the debaters will not have the moderating effects of the critic or the other debaters. Simply put, sexism at home or at lunch is worse than sexism in a debate round because in the round there is a critic to provide negative though not punitive feedback. The publicization effects of censorship are well known. "Psychological studies reveal that whenever the government attempts to censor speech, the censored speech - for that very reason - becomes more appealing to many people" (Strossen 559). These studies would suggest that language which is critiqued by language "arguments" becomes more attractive simply because of the critique. Hence language "arguments" are counterproductive.
Share with your friends: |
