Is the use of "derpy" ableist?
Disclaimer: I initially planned to post this in

equestria since it's largely about My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic but I changed my mind and chose to post here because while this discusses primarily MLP:FiM, the issues under discussion are not only unfunny and potentially rage-inducing, it's also something that could be applied to almost any fandom. If I have erred and this belongs in

equestria, then I will move it over there, but due to the unfunny issues involved, and the fact that this could be applied to nearly any fandom, I chose to go with the F_W rule of thumb: "When in doubt, UFB"

A little background: In My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, there is a very popular background pony, a periwinkle-blue pegasus pony with yellow hair and yellowish eyes, and a cutie mark of bubbles on her flanks. She appears frequently but is just as described: a background character; she plays no part in the plots. However, due to an animation error -- accidental or intentional, we don't know -- in the very first episode, she was presented in her first appearance with crazy, unaligned eyes, and the fandom glommed on to her. She is known by the fandom nickname of "Derpy Hooves" and show-creator Lauren Faust has stated that because background ponies have no names, that particular one can be Derpy if that's what the fandom wants.

Make no mistake, Derpy Hooves is hugely popular -- she can even rival the main characters in popularity. Fandom has created a very complex and interesting fanon about her, and she remains one of the most drawn, sprited and written-about characters in the series.

So, I was browsing Tumblr the other night, and came across an unusually vitriolic (and overly-generalizing, I think) comment by a user named "tumblrvigilante" decrying the name "Derpy Hooves" and the entire internet "derp" meme.

The thing is, the "derp" meme and more or less everything born of it (including "Derpy Hooves") makes a literal punch line out of those who are mentally disabled or simple unintelligent -- laughing at someone because of how they look or the state of their mental faculties is wrong and offensive. When you laugh because "Derpy Hooves" does something "stupid" (an ableist term in itself), you are laughing at "stupidity" in general -- you are laughing at something that nobody can help; you are laughing at the way someone was born. The same applies to laughing at "Derpy Hooves" because she has a lazy eye. When we openly laugh at and support these things, we support contributions to a culture that teaches not only our general population, but more importantly our -children- that laughing at people for being disabled, for looking on, for being unintelligent, is okay. But it's really not okay to laugh at someone with disabilities, is it?

In the argument that her "silly" appearance is "cute" or "endearing" -- well, that's a bit appropriative. It promotes the idea that it's okay to dehumanize someone with a physical/noticeable disability into something that makes us smile or laugh, even in what we consider a "positive" way. People with disabilities are not here for our entertainment or amusement. They are not here to make us feel better or to make us smile. They are just here, like you or me or anyone. They are people, and they deserve our respect for that alone.

"But she's just a pony," you'll probably say. Yes, she is a pony, and an animated, fictional one at that. But she is a product of our culture, and she contributes to it. She's being used to teach kids and adults alike that dehumanizing PWD is okay. She's being used to promote the idea that the "derp" meme is unharmful, but the process won't end with just the "derp" meme. It will carry over. Things like the "derp" meme can and have and will continue to be used as support for people who like to use the word "retarded" in a derogatory manner (which is basically what everyone who participates in the "derp/Derpy Hooves" meme is already doing), among several other demeaning and ableist slurs.

It's not okay, this "derp" business. And honestly, if you want to support it? At least come out and be upfront with what you're saying: You're okay with and openly support dehumanizing, slurring against, and generally ridiculing PWD/disabilities themselves.

In other words, tumblrvigilante believes that the use of the word "derp" is ableism, and calling the pony "Derpy Hooves" is tantamount to making fun of her unusual appearance.

The owner of the tumblr blog the comment was posted on was rather confused and taken aback by the comment, and posted a long response on her personal tumblr blog, hayjulay.

Later, tumblrvigilante replies with his or her own long response, further insisting that the use of the word "derp" is ableist and harmful, regardless of intent.

hayjulay replies again, and subsequently the point is presumably dropped by both sides. Both sides have made valid points (as well as some less-convincing points) in argument for or against the "derp meme" being ableist, and it appears that they have come to the "agree to disagree" conclusion.

This exchange between tumblrvigilante and hayjulay has been on my mind since I read it, and I briefly discussed the topic with a few friends. However, I'm curious to know what everyone here at

unfunny_fandom thinks. Is the whole "derp" meme an ableist slur, making fun of someone who is less fortunate or something that can't be controlled? Is the nickname "Derpy Hooves" actually ableism in disguise? Or is it all effectively a mountain made from a molehill?

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	edgyspice 2011-04-19 09:25 am UTC (link)
	I am medicated for various...mental disorders and the usage (or misusage) of "crazy" never bothered me. Still, if other people with mental illness object to it, that's their right and I'm not gonna give them a hard time about it. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sandglass
2011-04-19 05:15 pm UTC (link)

This isn't about my personal offense as a person with a mental illness, being associated with "Derpy Hooves". This is about 1. a common community standard against belittling others (not speaking as a mod, but as a member of JF, to people who generally respect others) 2. contributing to a system of oppression that is less policy and more societal attitudes. Continually misusing "Crazy" to be everything from other disorders (in this case, intellectual disability or just misaligned eyes) to violent, criminal, untrustworthy, illogical, and often evil. Your personal experience and opinion does not change the societal attitudes nor how they affect people.d

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

chibikaijuu
2011-04-19 08:14 pm UTC (link)

Yes, but societal attitude and specifically how they affect people come down to the conglomeration of people's personal experience. I absolutely understand why people have objections to the use of "crazy" and "insane" when applied to persons or behavior that is anywhere from merely unusual (or even fairly common and "normal", but silly), to extremely odd, to irrational, passionate, or simply unhinhibited, to on the extreme end, dangerous or frightening, because obviously none of these things are either necessarily related to mental illness, nor are they an accurate reflection of most mental illness.

However, my personal experience doesn't support the idea that this usage is necessarily a major contributor to false societal impressions and depictions of mental illness, nor have I found that it has that much of an effect on how people perceive and interact with me. I also know that other people have had the opposite experience, and I am still working through weighing the combined experiences and effects before I feel comfortable making a blanket statement about usage. However, since it makes may people very uncomfortable, I refrain from using those words in reference to anyone but myself, because I do not want to hurt others. This is something I don't understand why others fall down on - if someone asks you to please not use a word, because they find it hurtful, stop fucking using it, in their presence at the very least (and recognize that if they find it hurtful, others may as well). There is no purpose served in whining about how you don't agree and why shouldn't you use it and blah blah blah BAWWWWW. Just don't.

(I do admit that I am still struggling to find words that convey the same meanings with the same punch in context, particularly in reference to fictional characters whose behavior may be, shall we say, peculiar, but not necessarily indicative of mental illness, at least within their fictional context (or indicative of mental illness, but, being fictional, not necessarily diagnosed or diagnosable.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sandglass
2011-04-19 09:12 pm UTC (link)

I can appreciate using one's personal experience to decide whether or not something seems reasonable. Personally, I'm not sure if words like stupid and idiot are as ableist as "crazy" and am quite ambivalent to whether or not I'd completely remove them from my vocabulary.

The biggest problem I have is when people wield their personal experience as contradicting all argument and evidence. Especially since personal experience is so often colored by unconscious bias (as we've seen amply shown, even members of minority groups who are active in reducing their bias still show the bias), the flaws of memory, or just plain not getting it. Especially when discussing language, which is a normative force that people are unlikely to see directly affecting themselves and their situation, because it works at such a deep and unconscious level. (IE when we're discussing the rights of the mentally ill, just saying, "Mentally ill" is going to spark some association between that term, "crazy", and then everything crazy has been used to mean. And this might not be super valid to the individual, who is logical and reasonable, but it is when we're talking about a Democracy where everyone has a say and not everyone thinks their thoughts and feelings through before casting their influence.)

Basically, my rather harsh response was because the comment I was replying to came a little too close to, "My experience invalidates yours experience/logic!" especially since it came attached to no argument for why it is not offensive. Which is unfair, for sure, but at the same time, with the ableism, apathy, and privilege present elsewhere here, it is better for everyone to fully explain themselves.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

chibikaijuu
2011-04-20 12:15 am UTC (link)

With reference to "stupid" and "idiot" - I also have some difficulty as seeing the use of them being as ableist as a number of other words. "Stupid" has, so far as I know, never been used in a medical context or as a diagnosis, and calling someone stupid isn't a comparison to people with intellectual disabilities. (I have never found or been directed a source indicating that stupid actually means anything more than "unthinking, dull, senseless, foolish, inane" - yes, it's an insult, and yes, it can be leveraged in a that implies that the person is inherently lesser, but intelligent people can behave in stupid ways, and "you are inherently less intelligent and therefore worthless (because people who aren't smart enough, or have difficulties are worthless)" isn't a necessary implication of the word, unlike "imbecile" or "retard".) "Idiot" I can understand more, because it *was* used in medical and legal contexts as part of the oppression of people with disabilities, but it's also a word with a long history of meaning foolish or incompetent that far, far predates that use. (I try to refrain from using it at the very least online because I know that people find it hurtful, but it's still one where it's not clear the the current usage's primary link is to the medical/legal usage.)

And no, nobody's personal experience should invalidate all other argument or evidence, and using it that was is generally in pursuit of shutting down an argument that is making people uncomfortable. Words are complicated, and so is their effect - as a normative force in society, as a specific force on an individual.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sandglass
2011-04-20 12:36 am UTC (link)

The issue with "Stupid" is that it's really heavily a value judgment, or at least can be. Stupid is bad. However, a lack of intelligence, knowledge, quick thinking, etc can be symptoms of disability, and even if not, are sometimes (usually, or often, depending on your perspective) things that the person has no control over. Plus, if you do something like call, say, an evil politician "Stupid," you're really missing the point, so in that case the label is a horrible mis-evaluation or mislabel of the problem, and then you're associating stupid people with Dick Cheney, who is really smart and really knows what he's doing, but is just...Darth Vader.

Yeah, that's another problem with the "I'm X and I think". It seeks to make it all about experience, when the opinions can be completely independent of experience. (And that's where a lot of the, "I don't care if nobody associates idiot with the intellectually disabled, you still shouldn't use it" arguments come from--sometimes just the history is enough.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

chibikaijuu
2011-04-20 01:29 am UTC (link)

The issue for me with labeling "stupid" as ableist is that it's basically saying that calling people out on behaving as though they cannot think when there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this is the case is ableist. Implying that people who are less capable intellectually in some way are less worthy is ableist. Expecting people of normal intelligence without cognitive disorders to, you know, think, is not. (Which is not to say that people with developmental/intellectual/cognitive disabilities cannot think, but I recognize that they may not have the same processing abilities, or their ability to express certain things may be hampered, etc.) "Stupidity" is careless or willful thoughtlessness and/or inanity.

("Stupid" can also mean dull, senseless, or irritating, the latter two of which are probably the primary definitions when people call someone like Cheney "stupid", rather than an implication that he is unintelligent.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

rosehiptea
2011-04-19 09:10 pm UTC (link)

It bothers me when it's used to refer to an actual mental illness. In other words, "That's a crazy idea," doesn't bother me, but "My brother went crazy and they put him in the crazy house," would bother me. (Speaking as a person who is medicated and has been in mental hospitals blah blah blah my mental illness cred let me show it to you.)

But I agree with you that my person opinion about when it bothers me really doesn't trump anyone else's opinion.

(I do reserve the right to use the term to refer to myself, but I've learned the hard way not to talk much about having a mental illness.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sandglass
2011-04-19 09:17 pm UTC (link)

See, the reverse bothers me.

When you're talking about actual mental illness, at least you're maintaining some consistency. It's offensive and a slur, but you're still talking about the same thing. When crazy is taken to mean other things, like ridiculous, unwise, excessive, or illogical (which are the kinder side of the ill use), you're associating mental illness with something mental illness is not. It's kind of like the difference, I think, between obvious and veiled prejudice. When people are open about their prejudice, it's easier to recognize what they're doing and the harm it can cause. When they are more subtle about it, the harm gets ignored, even though it still exists.

But it also depends on how much you associate "Crazy" with "Mental illness". Obviously a big part of my argument is that there's a strong association with the two, so associating anything else with crazy also associates it with mental illness. That's not the way it is for everyone.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

rosehiptea
2011-04-19 09:45 pm UTC (link)

But it also depends on how much you associate "Crazy" with "Mental illness". Obviously a big part of my argument is that there's a strong association with the two, so associating anything else with crazy also associates it with mental illness. That's not the way it is for everyone.

I guess that is part of it for me -- when it's used in a way that seems totally divorced from mental illness it doesn't really register for me as being connected at all. And in many cases I tend to think it's not registering for other people either -- not that I'm saying "So therefore the word is fine."

But yeah, everyone has different experience and like I said I'm definitely not trying to say mine trumps anyone else's.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sandglass
2011-04-19 09:50 pm UTC (link)

And I suppose a large part of my opinion comes from--if the association doesn't, in actuality, contribute to oppression, not using the word doesn't actually harm anyone (especially, as I've said above, since I limit my argument and displeasure mostly to "crazy"). There are other words, ones that can be used completely without risk, so why not, at least when someone requests it, use them? Even if the gesture is completely meaningless, making the gesture is not, and refusing to make the gesture is deeply hurtful, especially in a community like this one, where similar gestures are preformed.

I may be overly keen on defending myself here, but I do not want anyone to come away with an unfair or false idea of my opinion.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	bienegold 2011-04-19 10:31 pm UTC (link)
	I really disagree that there are words that can be used without risk, tbh. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sandglass 2011-04-19 10:50 pm UTC (link)
	Due you mean that words like "Crazy" can be used without risk (which I wasn't saying was true, merely allowing for the possibility, as some people believe), or that there are no possible replacements? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

greenling
2011-04-19 11:20 pm UTC (link)

I think your argument has a lot of merit; I personally sympathize with the person above who feels that the word is less offensive when it's used to refer to ridiculous or erratic behavior rather than a person with an actual mental illness, but that's probably due to my frothing pet hatred of faux-sympathetic internet psychiatrists.

So, with all respect, I ask: what other words are you referring to that mean the same thing but aren't as-much-or-more associated with actual mental illnesses? This has come up in other contexts of late and I'm having trouble thinking of any, especially ones that aren't also some kind of obscure nerd reference that even I barely get.

Sorry for jumping in at a weird spot.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sandglass
2011-04-20 12:29 am UTC (link)

what other words are you referring to that mean the same thing but aren't as-much-or-more associated with actual mental illnesses?

Well, I mean the words that are generally more accurate than "Crazy". Crazy gets used to mean ridiculous, illogical, energetic, stupid, ill-founded, etc, none of which are associated with mental illness. In this case, "Crazy" is used to mean misaligned, askew, etc, again, not associated with mental illness. It's, in fact, the association with mental illness that gives crazy its meaning, when used that way.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sgaana
2011-04-20 12:48 am UTC (link)

Actually, in the "misaligned, askew, etc." sense, I think that's the other way around. Crazy/crazed as a synonym for cracked (/flawed, damaged in that specific way) seems (according to the OED) to have come first, and been adopted metaphorically first for any infirmity (including sickness) and then for mental illness. All, mind you, within a relatively short period of time (within a half century to a century).

Its application in that strict sense survives in terms like "crazy-quilt" and as an adjective for a particular style of stone paving, or to a particular style of pottery glazing. (That is, "exhibiting the characteristics of random cracking".)

The etymology seems to be that "craze" (as a verb, from which comes "crazy") derives from Swedish through Norman French, from a verb "to dash to pieces", i.e. to shatter. From that you get "crazed" meaning something that gives the appearance of having been broken/cracked. It seems to have taken two centuries or more for the meaning to migrate in English to its application to "broken in body" or "broken in mind".

... Which is not to say I'm thus arguing that it's A-OK. As someone mentioned in a thread above, common usage trumps origins. But (I find) it's interesting to know.

I think at this point it's all-but impossible to divorce it from its "mental illness" meaning if you are applying it to a person. That is -- it seems possible, from the OED's entries, to think that describing someone's actions as "crazy" may in some cases derive not from "mentally ill" but from a comparison with jumpy and random nature of lines and shapes characteristic of the literal meaning (similar to "crazy quilt"). Possible. But also splitting hairs, since that won't be the first association to leap to anyone else's mind. Most people, upon hearing someone called crazy, will think, "oh, you mean cracked in the head", and other such synonyms for mental illness. So, yeah.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	bienegold 2011-04-20 04:09 am UTC (link)
	I really don't think there are replacements. I don't mean that to say that people should just say whatever, I just don't think that there are truly neutral insults. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cmdr_zoom 2011-04-21 02:08 am UTC (link)
	pretty much by definition, yes. "I compare you to a (thing that is bad)!" (Reply to this)(Parent)

chibikaijuu
2011-04-19 11:57 pm UTC (link)

I think I am kind of with you on how I partition the words in my head. I might refer to myself as "crazy" or to my "crazymeds", but I find it worse when people refer to a person with a mental illness as crazy or insane (unless they are referring to themselves), because it implies something about them that is unlikely to be true. I have a mental illness. Most people (including myself) would consider me "sane" in the colloquial sense. I think because in my general experience (and, you know, the actual facts bear this out), people with mental illnesses do not act the way they are portrayed in media, nor the way characters that are generically "crazy" do, I have delineated a difference between "mentally ill" and "crazy". I think there's a lot more damage done by the media portrayal of specific diagnoses, or asylums full of "gibbering lunatics" than by referring to something over-the-top bizarre as "crazy" (but I can also see where they're connected). A "mad scientist" is, well, mad, crazy, insane - they're also not real, and not diagnosable (have there been "mad scientists" in real life? Yes, but most of them probably were not mentally ill).

But, like I said above, I will refrain from using words that other people find hurtful.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -