As far as the article goes, the word gimp isn’t necessarily seen as problematic because of its sexual reference but rather as a derogatory term for disabled people. And just because many people agree that they don’t care, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care. Democratic decisions fall flat when they deal with issues of minorities. The large majority of people doesn’t care about disabled people. So basing ethical considerations on the majority’s opinion is really no good idea. Same goes for other discriminatory language and slurs where always the same arguments are presented. I think the article does a great job of portraying the gatekeeping biases of such discussions.
Idunno where you got the idea that I’m for slurs or against disabled people but it’s kinda insulting, especially when you took “sometimes said as a derogatory word” and ran it like it’s the whole point or the article over the complaint that got its own paragraph (the Pulp Fiction bit) and shared the same sentence the disability bit is in, or the one that got the whole rest of the article (that it’s vaguely unprofessional). In fact I’m getting more irked every time I go look for evidence that I’ve misinterpreted it. Reading through a couple crap anecdotes to one that actually says something, we get a VP smirking at the name, which makes me wonder whether that person’s just a hateful prick smirking at a disability term or one of the many who giggle at any reference to anything associated with sex. The other three are just “some people dislike the name.” I conclude that the article does not take issue primarily with the name being an abusive term and wonder why you’d say that.
I muchly dislike careless use of abusive terms (I’ve probably got an essay or two ranting over the usage (and existence) of “crazy” and “insane,” for example) so I really don’t disagree that abusive terms should be treated much more seriously.
My entire point was that the author seems to be throwing things at the wall hoping something sticks, not seriously worrying some spooky scary BDSM critter (hi, it’s me :3 ) is gonna tie them up (of course not, the ropes are for me :3 ), nor that anyone’s getting bullied by the tool’s name or it’s irritating old wounds or really anything at all. I don’t think they’re taking any of this seriously. If the term’s abusive in a way that can’t be neutralized by taking it from abusers and making it something else (an arguably valid thing to do) then that’s worth actual serious discussion and not just part of one sentence in a six-page essay.
tl;dr: The article barely even mentions anything about disability and, I think, does so more as an excuse for itself than out of any serious concern for anyone. My complaint/point is, to be clear, exclusively that the article is crap and not that abusive terminology is okay. The article has failed to demonstrate any actual problem with the name itself other than handwavey “some people say” that it’s vaguely unprofessional.
As far as the article goes, the word gimp isn’t necessarily seen as problematic because of its sexual reference but rather as a derogatory term for disabled people. And just because many people agree that they don’t care, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care. Democratic decisions fall flat when they deal with issues of minorities. The large majority of people doesn’t care about disabled people. So basing ethical considerations on the majority’s opinion is really no good idea. Same goes for other discriminatory language and slurs where always the same arguments are presented. I think the article does a great job of portraying the gatekeeping biases of such discussions.
Idunno where you got the idea that I’m for slurs or against disabled people but it’s kinda insulting, especially when you took “sometimes said as a derogatory word” and ran it like it’s the whole point or the article over the complaint that got its own paragraph (the Pulp Fiction bit) and shared the same sentence the disability bit is in, or the one that got the whole rest of the article (that it’s vaguely unprofessional). In fact I’m getting more irked every time I go look for evidence that I’ve misinterpreted it. Reading through a couple crap anecdotes to one that actually says something, we get a VP smirking at the name, which makes me wonder whether that person’s just a hateful prick smirking at a disability term or one of the many who giggle at any reference to anything associated with sex. The other three are just “some people dislike the name.” I conclude that the article does not take issue primarily with the name being an abusive term and wonder why you’d say that.
I muchly dislike careless use of abusive terms (I’ve probably got an essay or two ranting over the usage (and existence) of “crazy” and “insane,” for example) so I really don’t disagree that abusive terms should be treated much more seriously.
My entire point was that the author seems to be throwing things at the wall hoping something sticks, not seriously worrying some spooky scary BDSM critter (hi, it’s me :3 ) is gonna tie them up (of course not, the ropes are for me :3 ), nor that anyone’s getting bullied by the tool’s name or it’s irritating old wounds or really anything at all. I don’t think they’re taking any of this seriously. If the term’s abusive in a way that can’t be neutralized by taking it from abusers and making it something else (an arguably valid thing to do) then that’s worth actual serious discussion and not just part of one sentence in a six-page essay.
tl;dr: The article barely even mentions anything about disability and, I think, does so more as an excuse for itself than out of any serious concern for anyone. My complaint/point is, to be clear, exclusively that the article is crap and not that abusive terminology is okay. The article has failed to demonstrate any actual problem with the name itself other than handwavey “some people say” that it’s vaguely unprofessional.