Some of our most common, ingrained expressions have damaging effects on millions of people – and many of us don't know we're hurting others when we speak.
As a disabled person, I face ableism and ableist language every day. Some people use ableist language without even knowing that it is ableist. I thought it would be good for folks to take a look at the attached BBC article and expand their perspectives a bit.
Intent is actually not everything. Legally speaking, if I run over a person with a car and they die, I can’t get away with it by saying, “well, I didn’t intend to kill them, so there shouldn’t be a consequence”. The impact of that person’s death is greater. It’s not murder, but it’s still manslaughter.
Ableist language is the same: it still causes harm, but obviously not harm to the body.
Even if no charges are laid, someone is dead. The intent to kill wasn’t there, but the impact is that someone is dead. It doesn’t matter if a person didn’t mean to kill someone, but again, someone is dead.
This is why impact matters far more than intent. This is an extreme example, but it still applies in all situations. Someone might want to argue their way out of offending someone else, but the damage has already been done.
Both are about impact vs intent. Both are about harm. I’m sorry you can’t see that.
If I accidentally spill hot coffee on you and say that it was an accident, you’re still going to be upset. You’d be more upset if I said I did it on purpose, but let’s not pretend that being offensive accidentally is okay.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Intent is actually not everything. Legally speaking, if I run over a person with a car and they die, I can’t get away with it by saying, “well, I didn’t intend to kill them, so there shouldn’t be a consequence”. The impact of that person’s death is greater. It’s not murder, but it’s still manslaughter.
Ableist language is the same: it still causes harm, but obviously not harm to the body.
There are a lot of two vehicle, or pedestrian, traffic fatalities that don’t result in manslaughter charges.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8973010/man-lying-in-road-hit-car-killed-comox-valley-rcmp/
To date, no charges have been laid.
Intent is huge.
Even if no charges are laid, someone is dead. The intent to kill wasn’t there, but the impact is that someone is dead. It doesn’t matter if a person didn’t mean to kill someone, but again, someone is dead.
This is why impact matters far more than intent. This is an extreme example, but it still applies in all situations. Someone might want to argue their way out of offending someone else, but the damage has already been done.
In the valid to the discussion case you said something with no intent to harm or insult anyone and you didn’t harm them, they decided you harmed them.
In the case of a car accident, you literally fucking killed someone.
It’s Apples and Oranges, a false equivalence argument that goes straight into the trash.
Both are about impact vs intent. Both are about harm. I’m sorry you can’t see that.
If I accidentally spill hot coffee on you and say that it was an accident, you’re still going to be upset. You’d be more upset if I said I did it on purpose, but let’s not pretend that being offensive accidentally is okay.
Legally speaking, if you didn’t intend to kill them it actually does change the consequences.