Idiot of the Day 2015: More stupid than stupid.

[SnowFire]

There's a lot of stupid geopolitics stuff out there, but this one is impressive.  Is this author literally on drugs?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/opinion/calm-down-isis-isnt-winning.html

* ISIS conquering cities "was a sign of desperation, not strength."
* "There is even a silver lining in the fall of Ramadi. Before last week, many Iraqi leaders seemed to have forgotten that the Islamic State was still a threat and failed to give credit to those doing the most to resist it....  Ramadi has ended their complacency."

Yeah, and I guess a building burning down might make people take fire safety seriously, just like a drought makes people end their complacency about conserving water.  Silver lining!  Too freaking late!  The VietCong are on the verge of collapse!

Is the author aware of the fact that when the Islamic State conquers cities, they execute anyone around vaguely sympathetic to the old order?  And those people don't magically come back?  Even if you don't give a fig for their lives, from a purely calculating standpoint it makes running the city & area harder even if it was to be reconquered tomorrow.  Which it won't be.

Also "arming the tribes is a crucial priority".  Apparently the author hasn't read about how most of IS's equipment is hijacked American supplies meant for the troops supposed to be fighting them, but abandoned after they are forced to retreat.

[metroid composite]

If you're unironically using the world ableism, it's time to unplug the computer and do something else with your life.

Wow, super, that's a pretty amazingly stupid thing to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableism

Until the 1970s, ableism in the United States was often codified into law. For example, in many jurisdictions, so-called "ugly laws" barred people from appearing in public if they had diseases or disfigurements that were considered unsightly.

The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of disability and requires that newly constructed multi-family housing meet certain access guidelines while requiring landlords to allow disabled persons to modify existing dwellings for accessibility.

Ableism and activism around it has existed since before you were born.

Like...are you actually genuinely angry that there is braille is sometimes offered as an alternative for blind people?  Are you pissed at people like me who add captions to videogames so that deaf people can still play?  What about when I add colourblind modes?  And if so........why?

[Anthony Edward Stark]

Yes he absolutely was raging against Braille. Way to beat up that straw man MC.

[NotMiki]

There is a damnably persistent strain of ultra-liberals who specialize in taking offense where none is meant, and protecting against theoretical evils that go unnoticed by their supposed victims.  A guy I know once tore into someone for using the phrase "stand up for your rights," because of course standing up is not something that everyone can do and using it in that context is ableism at its worst.  I wish I were making that up.  I am a proud liberal, and that motherfucker is a living, breathing right-wing caricature of everything I stand for.

The ADA is one of the best laws ever created, and I unwaveringly support it.  But ableism as a word stands more for a lunatic fringe of offense-seekers more than it stands for a bedrock principle of antidiscrimination.

(see also, the phrase "check your privilege," which takes a critically important idea and reduces it to a toxic sound byte.  If someone tells me that I should consider that my perspective is influenced by my position as a straight white male, I will say that's a perfectly valid point.  If someone tells me to check my privilege, I will say "go fuck yourself.")

[Fenrir]

Ableism sure looks a lot like feminism a few years ago, re: People's reactions to it.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

If it's ableist to not want to fuck people I'm not attracted to then sign me up.

There is a damnably persistent strain of ultra-liberals who specialize in taking offense where none is meant, and protecting against theoretical evils that go unnoticed by their supposed victims.  A guy I know once tore into someone for using the phrase "stand up for your rights," because of course standing up is not something that everyone can do and using it in that context is ableism at its worst.  I wish I were making that up.  I am a proud liberal, and that motherfucker is a living, breathing right-wing caricature of everything I stand for.

The ADA is one of the best laws ever created, and I unwaveringly support it.  But ableism as a word stands more for a lunatic fringe of offense-seekers more than it stands for a bedrock principle of antidiscrimination.

(see also, the phrase "check your privilege," which takes a critically important idea and reduces it to a toxic sound byte.  If someone tells me that I should consider that my perspective is influenced by my position as a straight white male, I will say that's a perfectly valid point.  If someone tells me to check my privilege, I will say "go fuck yourself.")

That's the economy of disability in a nutshell.  If you're a white middle class person you need to come up with new boxes to put yourself in and new things to get offended about otherwise you're not special.

[Dark Holy Elf]

The term can be used by people that Jim describes, and I agree that such people deserve no sympathy. Yet mc is correct to make the comments she did in response to "If you're unironically using the world ableism, it's time to unplug the computer and do something else with your life", because it's also quite possible to use the word reasonably, too.

edit: And no, Rob, that's not "ableist" in the slightest and nobody reasonble would argue that it is. I'm not sure you're in a position to accuse others of beating up a straw man.

[Grefter]

I know I have read articles that trend in the direction Rob describes, but it is all user contributions.  So amateur writers that may not even be communicating their actual intent (someone may be trying say that people should be accepting that someone might find any one attractive and that we maybe shouldn't default to going "ewes grooooosssssss to fat/old people having sex for example).

Pretending that is actually representative of a large demographic or somehow poisons progressive ideologies is mad fallacious though bros.

[superaielman]

There is a damnably persistent strain of ultra-liberals who specialize in taking offense where none is meant, and protecting against theoretical evils that go unnoticed by their supposed victims.  A guy I know once tore into someone for using the phrase "stand up for your rights," because of course standing up is not something that everyone can do and using it in that context is ableism at its worst.  I wish I were making that up.  I am a proud liberal, and that motherfucker is a living, breathing right-wing caricature of everything I stand for.

The ADA is one of the best laws ever created, and I unwaveringly support it.  But ableism as a word stands more for a lunatic fringe of offense-seekers more than it stands for a bedrock principle of antidiscrimination.

(see also, the phrase "check your privilege," which takes a critically important idea and reduces it to a toxic sound byte.  If someone tells me that I should consider that my perspective is influenced by my position as a straight white male, I will say that's a perfectly valid point.  If someone tells me to check my privilege, I will say "go fuck yourself.")

This states how I feel (Minus the whole being proudly liberal part) pretty aptly,l so I will quote this and agree. And MC: I'm not going to touch that argument because yeah strawman, but the specific article that started this was a really dumb post from a blogger who took offense that someone on a casual sex site would only want to have sex with people they found attractive. And yes, anyone who takes offense to someone who doesn't want to have casual sex with an HIV positive person is an idiot of the highest order and completely self absorbed to boot.

[NotMiki]

Ableism sure looks a lot like feminism a few years ago, re: People's reactions to it.

I think there's a pretty clear distinction between ableism and feminism: feminism is the name of a movement, the members of whom take on the label feminist as a description of the work they do and the goal they want to acheive.  Ableism is a term for a kind of discrimination.  No one identifies as an ableist.  It is a term used exclusively to criticize other people.  It is a sledgehammer of a term for a concept that should be approached with a great deal of nuance.  There's nothing inherently toxic about the term feminism but I don't think that will ever be the case with the term ableism.

[Dark Holy Elf]

There's nothing inherently toxic about the term ableism either, unless you also feel that there's something inherently toxic about the terms sexism and racism (which, in the sense that they label behaviour we consider unpleasant, sure you're correct, but I don't think that's what you meant). So I do see where Fenrir is coming from that people are ascribing toxicity to folks using the term based on an obnoxious minority, and that's a very problematic thing to do.

Privilege is similar. It's a very important concept, and I'm not going to stop using the term "privilege" to describe that concept even if some obnoxious fuckwits overuse it, and would resent any implication that the term is inherently toxic because of said fuckwits. (And let's please not act like said fuckwits are a bigger problem than the broad social issues they bring up; insulting them is too often a cover to discredit anyone who argues for social justice.)

[metroid composite]

There is a damnably persistent strain of ultra-liberals who specialize in taking offense where none is meant, and protecting against theoretical evils that go unnoticed by their supposed victims.  A guy I know once tore into someone for using the phrase "stand up for your rights," because of course standing up is not something that everyone can do and using it in that context is ableism at its worst.  I wish I were making that up.  I am a proud liberal, and that motherfucker is a living, breathing right-wing caricature of everything I stand for.

The ADA is one of the best laws ever created, and I unwaveringly support it.  But ableism as a word stands more for a lunatic fringe of offense-seekers more than it stands for a bedrock principle of antidiscrimination.

(see also, the phrase "check your privilege," which takes a critically important idea and reduces it to a toxic sound byte.  If someone tells me that I should consider that my perspective is influenced by my position as a straight white male, I will say that's a perfectly valid point.  If someone tells me to check my privilege, I will say "go fuck yourself.")

So....you're supportive of the concepts, but just hate the words because there are some people out there who have misused the terms?  Even if a large number of the people who use the terms do so in a reasonable way?

I suppose I consider that irrational behavior.  Don't get me wrong, it's an emotional response on your part, and emotions are valid.  If there's some words that provoke a negative emotional reaction in you, then I can endeavor to not use those words around you.  I just...wasn't expecting such a reaction I suppose?

And MC: I'm not going to touch that argument because yeah strawman, but the specific article...

Hadn't read the article (still haven't; sounds boring).  I was responding to your post which made much wider generalizations about the use of the word ableism.

[SnowFire]

there are some people out there who have misused the terms?

After a certain amount of "misuse" it just becomes "use."  I'm in favor of "men's rights" in the abstract (as should everyone?), but the way that term is actually USED means I'm likely going to disagree with anything a "Men's Rights Activist" has to say.  "Retarded" was once a nice, neutral clinical word to describe people insulted as idiots.  After enough 'misuse' it just became another insult.

If abelism ever had a "legitimate" phase where it meant something useful about accommodations for the handicapped, that time has passed.

[metroid composite]

there are some people out there who have misused the terms?

After a certain amount of "misuse" it just becomes "use."  I'm in favor of "men's rights" in the abstract (as should everyone?), but the way that term is actually USED means I'm likely going to disagree with anything a "Men's Rights Activist" has to say.  "Retarded" was once a nice, neutral clinical word to describe people insulted as idiots.  After enough 'misuse' it just became another insult.

Agree that terms can be completely coopted by people not really fighting for perhaps the idealized meaning (as per men's rights).

"retarded" is an interesting case; hold on, going to look up the history on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Disability_and_handicap

Idiot, imbecile, and moron were once neutral terms for a developmentally delayed adult with the mental age comparable to a toddler, preschooler, and primary school child, respectively.[17] In time, negative connotations tend to crowd out neutral ones, so the phrase mentally retarded was pressed into service to replace them.[18] This too was eventually considered pejorative and became commonly used as an insult. Today, terms such as mentally challenged, mentally disabled, with an intellectual disability, learning difficulties and special needs are used to replace the term retarded.

This, I think, will continue to churn through terminology, as people keep appropriating medical terms for "stupid".  Like...Aspergers was recently replaced by "high functioning autism".  Pretty sure I've started to see people use "special needs" as an insult as well--that one might be on its way out.

If abelism ever had a "legitimate" phase where it meant something useful about accommodations for the handicapped, that time has passed.

Eh?  I see it used in legitimate cases quite often.  Like...the biggest charity about accessibility in games literally calls themselves ablegamers

http://www.ablegamers.com/

And yes, I've seen them use the word ableism specifically.

I also see ableism used productively on some forums I visit.  And...hell, I want to say I've seen it on game industry mailing lists.  (Usually in the form of ground rules; i.e. "no sexism, racism, or ableism on this list.")

I dunno, I want to say 90% of the uses I see of the word are actually pretty legit.

[Cmdr_King]

So....you're supportive of the concepts, but just hate the words because there are some people out there who have misused the terms?  Even if a large number of the people who use the terms do so in a reasonable way?

Well... yes.  Because in a social activism context,  forming consensus, finding common goals, and making coalitions of different interests to affect change are the entire goal.  Once terminology or phrases have become used  to be exclusionary or are co opted as tools of derision?  They are the precise opposite of helping.  When a word for discrimination is more commonly associated with assclowns engaging in 4chan antics than legitimate use, it's hurting your cause to keep using it.  When "check your privilege" is a tool to silence opinion rather than a reminder to expand discussion, you're alienating necessary allies.  When people see the word "Feminism" on your website and immediately click away rather than reading on and finding themselves agreeing with you, the movement becomes stagnant and ineffective.

In other words, in this context the ability of a few assholes to alter the perception of words to the uninformed reader is a very big deal, and from sheer pragmatism must be addressed in some manner.  And even here we see that for a group of (on average) highly educated and politically informed readers these distorted  meanings can be the first ones called to mind.  It's a pretty bad sign, y'know?

[metroid composite]

So....you're supportive of the concepts, but just hate the words because there are some people out there who have misused the terms?  Even if a large number of the people who use the terms do so in a reasonable way?

Well... yes.  Because in a social activism context,  forming consensus, finding common goals, and making coalitions of different interests to affect change are the entire goal.  Once terminology or phrases have become used  to be exclusionary or are co opted as tools of derision?  They are the precise opposite of helping.  When a word for discrimination is more commonly associated with assclowns engaging in 4chan antics than legitimate use, it's hurting your cause to keep using it.  When "check your privilege" is a tool to silence opinion rather than a reminder to expand discussion, you're alienating necessary allies.  When people see the word "Feminism" on your website and immediately click away rather than reading on and finding themselves agreeing with you, the movement becomes stagnant and ineffective.

In other words, in this context the ability of a few assholes to alter the perception of words to the uninformed reader is a very big deal, and from sheer pragmatism must be addressed in some manner.  And even here we see that for a group of (on average) highly educated and politically informed readers these distorted  meanings can be the first ones called to mind.  It's a pretty bad sign, y'know?

Yeah, I can agree with most of this.

But I do think it depends a little on context, and target audience.  Like...to use feminism as an example...if you're trying to convert non-believers, then sure, maybe don't use the word feminism.  And there are websites that specifically re-branded themselves, changed their URL to hide the word feminism.

But at the same time, when I talk in women in games email lists, nobody is scared or bothered by the word feminism, so we just use it.

In terms of the idea of getting everyone everywhere to start using a new word for feminism that 4chan doesn't know about yet...that would be really hard.  And there would be a danger too that any new word created would be percieved as just "trendy" or "politically correct" or whatever.  Though sure, obviously new words can be adopted.

[NotMiki]

There's nothing inherently toxic about the term ableism either, unless you also feel that there's something inherently toxic about the terms sexism and racism (which, in the sense that they label behaviour we consider unpleasant, sure you're correct, but I don't think that's what you meant). So I do see where Fenrir is coming from that people are ascribing toxicity to folks using the term based on an obnoxious minority, and that's a very problematic thing to do.

the term 'ableism' is reductive of a complex topic that 99% of the time ought not to be reduced.  Unlike sexism and racism, when you talk about discrimination against the disabled, you are talking about what accommodations should or should not be made.  Should Business X be obligated to spend $80,000 on a wheelchair ramp, Should Business X be allowed to exclude people with disability Y from consideration for position Z, etc.  The reasonableness of accommodations for the disabled is a topic where rational minds may differ - it is very fact-specific.  So my sense it that most of the time when someone hurls an accusation of ableism, they do so in bad faith - in other words they don't have very good evidence that the target of their scorn is discriminating for an invidious reason.  Contrast that to racism - if you are discriminating on the basis of race and you're not casting a production of Othello, it is a virtual certainty that you are guilty of invidious discrimination.

It's noteworthy that 'ableism' is a very young term - if Google Trends is to be trusted, it did not come into widespread use until 2007 - and the term 'ableist' saw no use before 2010.  So we're dealing with a small sample size here.

[Dark Holy Elf]

I agree with pretty much all of that.

Interestingly, I was first introduced to the term in 2008, when I took a class on the inclusion and consideration of folks with disabilities (primarily learning and developmental disabilities, as you might guess). And some of the contexts in which the idea was introduced were certainly rather black-and-white ("reductive" if you will); our society's history of interactions with disabled people includes some rather appalling stories. Of course, most issues on the subject today are likely to be more nuanced (few argue for forced sterilisation of the mentally handicapped any more), and I certainly agree with it being a complex topic. To be perfectly honest I can't remember the last time I used the term myself. But as someone who has seen it used in a proper fashion, I'm going to stand by my resentment of Super's comment.


Snowfire: mmm, there's an obvious difference with men's rights. If someone told me, "I'm in favour of men's rights", I would not dismiss that argument or consider it a toxic term. There are, after all, some very valid discussions worth having on the subject, and "men's rights" remains the best label for that subject I'm aware of. It's the "Men's Rights Movement/Activism" (usually capitalised!) which is more of a banner for toxicity, and yeah if someone told me they were part of that they would immediately get on my "regard with suspicion" list. But I think it's fair to consider an organisation toxic. Terms I'm less sure of.

[Captain K]

Well the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is still around, but I'm not going to call a black man colored unless I want an ass-whupping.

[NotMiki]

Yeah, that happens with old groups.  NYSARC, for example (formerly the New York State Association for Retarded Citizens).

[AndrewRogue]

I know I have read articles that trend in the direction Rob describes, but it is all user contributions.  So amateur writers that may not even be communicating their actual intent (someone may be trying say that people should be accepting that someone might find any one attractive and that we maybe shouldn't default to going "ewes grooooosssssss to fat/old people having sex for example).

Pretending that is actually representative of a large demographic or somehow poisons progressive ideologies is mad fallacious though bros.

Interestingly, I was first introduced to the term in 2008, when I took a class on the inclusion and consideration of folks with disabilities (primarily learning and developmental disabilities, as you might guess). And some of the contexts in which the idea was introduced were certainly rather black-and-white ("reductive" if you will); our society's history of interactions with disabled people includes some rather appalling stories. Of course, most issues on the subject today are likely to be more nuanced (few argue for forced sterilisation of the mentally handicapped any more), and I certainly agree with it being a complex topic. To be perfectly honest I can't remember the last time I used the term myself. But as someone who has seen it used in a proper fashion, I'm going to stand by my resentment of Super's comment.

To tangent off this, as someone whose familiarity with the term does come from common discussion, my understanding what Ableism "means" is fairly different from what the technical definition actually is (though overlap does exist between the proper use and the use I'm familiar with). I'm way more inclined to think of "ableism" as being representative of the idea that thinking of individuals as handicapped/disabled is wrong, full stop. The sort of use where I am mortally insulting someone in a wheelchair or on crutches if I help them with a door or something.

THAT SAID, I feel this is more a consequence of what Grefter talks about up there. The wider public discussion on the subject (IME) seems to generally err on the side of dumb. I'm actually kinda stretching to think of a talk on ableism outside this one right here that has actually had... I'm stretching for a word here. Merit seems extreme? A conversation on ableism that did not amount to "Check Your Privilege!" rather than actually discussing historical/modern contexts or even the needs of handicapped individuals.

[metroid composite]

It's noteworthy that 'ableism' is a very young term - if Google Trends is to be trusted, it did not come into widespread use until 2007 - and the term 'ableist' saw no use before 2010.  So we're dealing with a small sample size here.

A few quick google searches suggest that it's older; this source claims 60s/70s:

http://nndr.no/ableism-and-ability-studies/

It's worth noting that Google Trends isn't everything; it doesn't go back before 2004, and the data from 2004 seems to be a bit spotty.  Like...if we believe Google Trends, then Monica Lewinsky was most searched for in 2014/2015.

Although I'll agree I didn't know people who used the term ableism until relatively recently (within the past 12 months was my introduction).  Then again, the subject was not really on my mind.  I was more focused on stuff like homophobia (and had lots of facepalm-worthy conversations on the internet where someone insisted to me that they could not be homophobic because they didn't have a phobia of gay people......).


That said, suppose Google Trends is correct: the term was not in widespread use before 2007, which sounds possible.  Well...we've already discussed how some older words (like "retarded") sometimes get abandoned, and newer terms need to be adopted.  Maybe that's what happened here.  Maybe there was an old term that was no longer really acceptable, and "ableism" IS the new term.  Just a thought.  (Again, obviously this isn't my first area of expertise).

[Anthony Edward Stark]

http://www.avclub.com/article/spider-man-should-be-snapchatting-edm-fan-accordin-218519

I think this was written by the executives who were responsible for making Poochy the Dog "20% more rasta-fied."  The best example is unquestionably:

Millennials will often post “N.B.D.” on their social media after doing it , as in No Big Deal, also known as the “humble brag”.....wondering if Spidey could get into that in some way....he’s super athletic, bendy, strong, intense....and it’s all NBD to him, of course.

[Luther Lansfeld]

http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/04/there-is-no-victim-a-survey-of-iblp-literature-on-sexual-assault-and-abuse/

I fell into a hole reading about the Quiverful/ATI creeps today, and this is pretty much the worst. Not 'idiots' as much as scary, manipulative cultists.

http://www.recoveringgrace.org/media/Counseling_Sexual_Abuse-540x700.jpeg

4. Why did god let it happen? Maybe it was IMMODEST DRESS or being out with evil friends, great

6. If abused is not at fault-- seriously???

8 is also creepy as fuck. "No physical abuse or mighty in the spirit -- which would you choose?"

The story about Tamar at the end of the article is also pretty fucked up.

[NotMiki]

Somehow, reading the article, the most distressing thing to me about it is that the author felt the need to write it.  That this cult enjoys enough influence that people need to actually expend effort beating it down.

There was a Pew survey a couple weeks ago that showed that the number of people self-identifying as liberal in the US has grown to equal the number self-identifying as conservative for the first time in decades, if it has ever happened.  The entire change came from folks who were already voting Democrat.  I can't help but feel that that increased willingness to identify with being a liberal is a direct result of the Catholic clergy abuse scandal and the drip drip drip of incidences of sex abuse from the country's religious conservative groups.  Also the losing battle conservatives fought on gay marriage.  That the Christians that felt bad about not going to church every Sunday always assumed that the more conservative folks had a lock on morality that their secular peers lacked.  I don't think they think that anymore.