You accept the argument that there is a history of discrimination against people with intellectual disabilities, it would appear. Let’s keep in mind also that there is a history of discrimination against people with a wide range of neuroatypicality: People discriminate people against people who do not acquire and process information in the same way that they do. I’m going to assume, for the sake of simplicity, that you also accept this argument.

It also appears that you accept the argument that there is a history of discrimination against people who lack access to education, which can be a result of class, ability status, or both. (As seen, for example, when parents of neuroatypical children who are also of lower class status have difficulty accessing needed services for their kids.)

Where you appear to be experiencing difficulties is with the idea that language which priviledges certain types of brains over others is ableist, so I’m going to try to break this down a bit for you.

When we want to insult someone who is “acting…stupid,” we use language which has been historically used against people who are neuroatypical, whichever form that it happens to take. This language carries weight because people understand that it’s a form of shorthand which refers to people who think differently than they do. And by “think differently” I don’t mean “disagree,” I mean “process, acquire, and handle information in ways which are different.” In fact, this language means a “person who [may have] certain mental facilities available but doesn’t use them,” as you put it. As a neuroatypical, I’ve been repeatedly told to “use your brain” and to “think harder” by people who believe in that exact sentiment: That I have the “faculty” and I’m just not using it. But it’s not that simple. I may have the “faculty,” but I can’t access it, because I do not process information in the way that neurotypical folks do.

So, when I hear a word like “nitwit” to describe someone who (seems to be) able, I’m hearing a reinforcement of the idea that certain types of processing are more valuable and “better” than others. I don’t know, interacting with someone on a limited level, why that person does not think the way that I do. Maybe people writing 2+2=5 have dyscalculia, for example. Maybe they aren’t “thoughtless and stupid,” maybe their brains just doesn’t work the way mine does. The objective valuation of brains which work in a certain way is definitely ableist, I think you would agree, and terms which are rooted in this idea are also ableist, whether or not they are being used to describe a person with disabilities, because they reference a culture of ableism. They are insults because of social attitudes which reinforce the idea that some brains are better than others.

I am a bit disturbed by the language you used here which seemed to suggest that language is only ableist when used against people with disabilities; I’m not sure you actually meant that, but it’s how it reads. Ableist language is ableist not because it is used against disabled persons, but because it references disability in a negative way. “Lame,” for example, is ableist whether or not it’s being used to discuss someone with a different gait, because it carries the implications that to have an “abnormal” gait is bad. Just as words like “idiot” and “-wit” carry the implications that an “abnormal” brain is bad.

More to the point; if you want to say that someone is genuinely being, say “thoughtless,” or careless, why not just say that? Why use a word which carries a history of ableism when there’s a perfectly good word to use instead?

It does, clearly, imply that people who reach the same conclusion as the speaker are superior. But that’s not intrinsically ableist. It can absolutely be used to refer to people with disabilities, but so can any insult. Does that make the word intrinsically ableist?

Literal meaning, I find, is of little help here. Words are not constrained to their dictionary definitions. You do a great job of looking at how the word is used and how society thinks about intelligence–the last being very definitely ableist! And so I can see how the word could be used in an ableist manner. But…

Well here, let me see if I can say it this way.

““Nitwit” appeared around the 1920s, and appears to have Yiddish origins, with “nit” meaning “nothing,” so a “nitwit” is literally someone who is deemed lacking in intelligence or thought processing abilities.”

It can certainly be used to say just that. But I think that if we look at the word’s actual usage, we’ll find that it refers to a nondisabled person who has certain mental facilities available but doesn’t use them. Someone who can add, but is careless or hurried and writes down 2 + 2 = 5. Someone who is acting thoughtless or stupid. And I think that’s a crucial difference.

I don’t buy that just because a word has to do with intelligence, it is ableist. Because I find the same condition that you reference–people confounding different concepts with this idea of “intelligence”, and not actually referring to any disability.

So that’s my defense of the insult. Which is a weird thing to do.

BUT. I wanted to say “hear, hear!” a few times as I was reading this and the comments, so I figure now is a good time?

Mainly, I too hate jokes where someone’s lack of intelligence–not problem solving skills, not knowledge, but intelligence, whatever that is–is the butt of the joke. That’s ableist. Society’s attitudes about intelligence in general? Are ableist. Insulting someone because you consider them less intelligent? Is ableist. Absolutely. I question whether or not the words one uses in these situations are intrinsically ableist, but I have no such quibbles about the context itself. Which makes living in this society rather difficult.

That doesn’t mean that you, personally, can’t prefer certain types of humour and joking, including the snappy repertoire for which people like Dorothy Parker are known and loved. I have very specific tastes in humour, after all, as does everyone else; this isn’t about what people should/shouldn’t like (after all, dictating things like that is not very feminist), it’s about how society as a whole views these things. Society as a whole prizes this type of humour because it thinks that intelligence is more valuable.

Nor is this about whether or not people ought to be ashamed of things (although I personally prefer that people not be ashamed of aspects of their personality). Or about how people should think; this whole series is about examining social attitudes and social thinking and the ways in which we unconsciously reinforce them with our own words and actions.

On another level, I find it extremely uncomfortable when I am exposed to humour which exploits perceived intellectual shortcomings, in which people with these shortcomings are used as the butt of a joke. Again, I think this is ableist, just like a joke which uses racial stereotypes as “humour” is racist.

You sure? I’ve always loved the quick witted denizens of the Algonquin Round Table -especially Dorothy Parker- and I’m the complete opposite, extremely slow witted for the reasons you explained in your post (I’m autistic and have trouble speaking and it takes me much longer to process language, getting jokes, and sarcasm, etc.)
I’m not the least bit ashamed of that, (and why should I?) and I can still appreciate people for being quick witted.
And speaking of slow-witted, it’s possible that I’ve missed the point. (Please correct me if I didn’t get it.)
Kowalski´s last blog ..NaNoWriMo: Harold and Maude

My child when in school would cry and say “I know it in my brain but I can’t get it out of my mouth or on to the paper” and I know that feeling……

Here in the UK, ‘Nits’ are a term for head lice. Given that those suffering from lice are generally characterised as dirty, poor, and “too stupid to get rid of them” ( I quote a friend of mine here), I think it’s possible that this phrase has a double insult attached – one being that the person has the intelligence of a louse (or ‘bugs in the brain” as a relative puts it), and the other being that the person is also dirty and ‘infested’.

Neither being a particularly nice thing to say.

I have never used -wit words, but I am glad they’re on my radar now.