The Ironies Of Social-Linguistic Safe Zones; When Anti-Ableism Goes Too Far.

When it comes to words that are no longer ok to use, ...

There needs to be a daily-updated list of words it's ok to use vs not-ok to use. 

Otherwise, I just can't keep up with it. 

And honestly, that's one of the things that irk me about the far-left. 

I'm not a fan of "safe zones" taken to those extremes.

Those aren't as much a growth-catalyst as people like to imagine. 

 I think it ends up being a form of secular "purity culture", as we turn non-issues and petty issues into virtue-standards; for which the far-left will rebuke, censor, and (before long) cancel us for repeatedly violating; regardless of the context and spirit in which such words are spoken. 

Safe zones reduce social and psychological durability. 

It's like how a middle-aged Amish 

(or Sharia-Law-Country-resident adult) 

feels like it's scandalous for a young woman to show her ankles or a shoulder. 

The greater lengths we go to, 

in order to protect seeing and listening people's sensitive eyes and ears, ... 

The more sensitive they (everyone participating in that cultural paradigm) will become.

So then the list of prohibited things that must not be seen or heard ... grows; 

- right along with how "wrong" it feels to see and hear those things. 

Over time, member/participants in those cultural bubbles  

become more and more socially divisive and destructive;

- in the name of "protecting" the vulnerable members of society.

This causes the vulnerable (which now includes everyone who lives in that bubble) to become even more vulnerable, as they become even more sensitive, fragile, and reactive.

That, in turn, makes their journey harder in the long-run;

- as they become less and less able to tolerate the larger world outside of that bubble;

or to even feel safe outside of it.

It makes people gradually lose the ability to assess social-ethical standards based on the actual meaning, intent and attitude of others;

as bubbled-people transition to evaluating everyone based on "how it feels" (to be overly-and-irrationally sensitive).

 

Meanwhile,

(anyone) being overly-and-irrationally sensitive 

~on behalf of others~

doesn't make it any better.

 It just drafts the vulnerable into that bubble;

which ends up working against their best interests. 

So then,

all willing participants in that cultural paradigm 

will feel like (and have been told) 

that the world owes them participation in that bubble, so that it can be fully portable to all settings. 

--

--

So while I appreciate the reasoning behind adding something like "crazy" to the list of words we can't say, ... 

I maintain that the only time we shouldn't be using it in casual discourse 

is when we're actually denigrating the vulnerable. 

When I say a word, 

I know

* what I mean, 

* who it's personally or categorically about, 

and 

* the spirit in-which I've uttered those words.

In all such moments,

that should all be easy to recognize 

for any socially-experienced ear 

that hasn't lost those life-skills in a portable bubbleverse. 

-imho