this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
53 points (100.0% liked)

Chat

7498 readers
3 users here now

Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
53
What's an equivalent replacement for the word "lame"? (beehaw.org)
submitted 1 year ago by FlickOfTheBean@beehaw.org to c/chat@beehaw.org
80 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I don't know if I'm just becoming overly sensitive to my own language or if this is an actual issue, so feel free to let me know if it seems that I just need to grow thicker skin, but still.

I keep getting this uneasy feeling whenever I use the word "lame" and I think it's because I'm starting to realize it's technically ableist. However, there's no single non-profane word that I know of that fits the niche that I use it in.

For example, I wrote out something earlier about a behavior I do that I don't like that I do because I think it's kind of shitty behavior, but it's overall harmless. I use lame to describe it casually. I could also call it kind of shitty, as I did before, but not to audiences that I don't want to use profanity around.

Anyone know of a word I can replace "lame" with?

I'd say maybe weak, but that's got its own baggage that I'm not sure I'm ok with switching to. Annoying is too strong of a word for what I'm going for. Maybe lame is a short word for "this makes me feel slightly sad"?

Idk, so I open it up to the public: Is this even an issue or am I being too sensitive? Could this be solved in a single replacement word or do I need a whole ass phrase to express this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlickOfTheBean@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Hmm I wonder if I may have shot past the more straightforward way to parse it.

I'm coming from a stance where "don't do it as soon as you know it's ableist" is voiceless rule, so that significantly colors how I'm interpreting it.

That response was more me being like "oh wow this is essentially saying ignorance is an excuse for using ableist language" (caveats run amok here like "only when there are no known other words" as well as "strictly only when one isn't employing a shitty stereotype when referring to whoever they're referring to")

Admittedly, I can see how that is still a less than desirable takeaway, but all I'm trying to say is I 100% agree with what you've written.

Tldr; thank you for the clarification! Full agree and this is mostly just me trying to figure out where some disconnect is