People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. So policy statements targeting the unwoke for their micro-aggressions should be especially careful about their own metaphors. Hereafter there shall be no wilful ‘blindness’. No longer should we ‘stand up’ for what’s right. No turning a ‘deaf’ ear to cries of injustice.
But there’s no end to inadvertent SJW insensitivity, including admonishing the insensitivity of others. Has the SJW considered how this makes victims of leprosy feel? Has she considered how even the mention of ‘feeling’ makes them feel?
Not unlike wine, a day without metaphor is like a day without sunshine. Well suck it up, princess! Blind people have no choice but to go on a blind date. Deaf people can hear no evil. What can I call my sense of humour now that it can’t be black? People with upper spine injuries have no choice about having been rendered insensitive. How do you think it feels [sic] to be reminded of their exclusion from the conversation by your insensitive [sic] metaphors?!
In Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand made mock of a writer who prided himself on a novel devoid of the letter e. I’m thinking of rewriting all my blog entires avoiding any and all of the above-mentioned micro-offences, and daring anyone to mock me for it. Certainly making others feel included incurs a cost. But it’s a cost we should all be willing to pay. If you’re not you’re just being insensitive [sic].
Wait a minute. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones? Why would we say this if neither should people who live in houses not made of glass? So how do glass-housed people feel [sic] being singled out this way? Dammit, now I have to rewrite this entry too.
Instead of using metaphors, why can’t we just say what we mean? What we mean is that people who are unwilling to be criticised themselves shouldn’t criticise others. See? We don’t need metaphors. Because a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Oh shit!
Categories: Everything You Wanted to Know About What's Going On in the World But Were Afraid to Ask
Paulosophical Vimplications 
One of my favourite meta-faux-pas is from the British Columbia Office of the Human Rights Commissioner https://bchumanrights.ca/be-anti-racist-colour/
“If I say I don’t see skin colour am I racist?” Not if you’re blind! Blind people in fact don’t see skin colour. If the BCHRC is using an ableist metaphor … well, not much of an HRC.
The BCHRC’s anti-racist campaign asks “are you colour-blind?”. Maybe. An ableist question if ever there was, particularly since they’re implying my colour-blindness makes me a racist. What’s that? Oh, some people can use ableist metaphors. So, in the intersectional hierarchy race trumps disability? I’m confused.
Anyway, it gets worse. The BCHRC asks, “Are you blind to colour?… Or reality?” Colour-blindness and an attack on rationality, aka mental health. This ableism has no end.
We’re not through. The BCHRC says “Seeing is believing. When we say we don’t see colour it can actually reinforce racism by hiding it. How we each see the world —and what we choose not to see — shapes our reality. To be truly anti-racist, we have to think and see differently.”
My goodness, if blind people could see at all … blindness is not usually a choice. A woman who apparently wanted to be blind from childhood intentionally blinded herself with drain cleaner. https://people.com/celebrity/jewel-shuping-blinds-herself-with-drain-cleaner/
And Matthew 5:29 advises that if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out. But I really doubt most people would choose to be blind.
LikeLike