Ableist language

[Spoon]

So I guess the real question, for people who are concerned about the use of ableist slurs, is - do you want all words that have negative connotations and have their origin in describing a certain sect of the population to be banned from use, or do you merely want to ban the ones that are still trigger-worthy? Does it have to do with whether the word is still used to refer to said sect of the population?

The problem with using the term "trigger-worthy" is that potentially anything can be a trigger. I mean, yes, there's definitely things that are triggers to more people than others, but say (heads up, it's on a talk show and uses her phobia for the sake of humor) this lady who is deathly afraid of pickles. Should we put warnings for anything and everything that has triggered someone?

I mean, I would feel awful if I triggered someone (or if I have and no one's told me about it), but I don't know at what point or if there is a point where what I say won't cause someone somewhere to react negatively.

 

[Ether's Bane]

I guess the question is "how recently was the word in question used to describe a certain group of people". TCoD frowns upon the use of 'gay' and 'retarded' as insults because the insulting, marginalizing nature of those words is very much still present. However only some TCoDians are arguing that words such as 'crazy' and 'insane' should be outlawed because the association between those words and mentally ill people, while present, is not as implied in some contexts nearly as much as the association between 'gay' and 'retarded' and their more technical meanings (homosexuality and impaired intelligence) is. Going back even further, the word 'sinister' has its origins in the Latin word for the left hand, sinestra. The word evolved from meaning "left-handed" to meaning "evil", as if to suggest that left-handed people are evil, as some thought was the case centuries ago. However I have not heard any TCoDer arguing that the word sinister should be included in the list of words to ban. The word's colloquial definition, evil, has all but eclipsed its original association with left-handedness and certainly I don't think anyone thinks of an association that left-handed people are evil when using the word sinister.

So I guess the real question, for people who are concerned about the use of ableist slurs, is - do you want all words that have negative connotations and have their origin in describing a certain sect of the population to be banned from use, or do you merely want to ban the ones that are still trigger-worthy? Does it have to do with whether the word is still used to refer to said sect of the population?

Basically, how do you determine which words are ableist slurs and which ones aren't? I mean, even Datura's list describing replacement words for ableist slurs included "absurd", which ... explained has its origins in - whoops - ableism. Where do you draw the line?

This is exactly why I feel the terms discussed for banning should not be banned - it leads to a slippery slope. How do you justify banning words like "denigrate" and "sinister", which had their meanings changed centuries ago? Answer: you can't.

I'm also really curious about thoughts on uses of "crazy" as an actually-positive thing, like as a way of saying "wow, this is incredible and amazing and cool"! I was watching a video series about the universe and the narrator kept going on about how "crazy" the universe is in the sense that it's really amazing! Is using it as a good thing suddenly okay, or is it still bad because that kind of definition can really only come from having it mean things like "ridiculous" or "outlandish", first? Does it still give people the wrong idea and still remind them of the negative use?

No. Even if I found the word "crazy" offensive (I don't, by the way), I'd be perfectly okay with its use as a positive.

Language evolving is important to take note of, sure! A word trying to evolve isn't always good, though. People take words that others needed and turn them into bad mean things! If a word is evolving to get worse and meaner, then why shouldn't people try hard to stop it from happening?

Would you also be against a word's evolving in a more positive direction? Have a look at this:

Five hundred years ago, when "nice" was first used in English, it meant "foolish or stupid." This is not as surprising as it may seem, since it came through early French from the Latin nescius, meaning "ignorant." By the 16th century, the sense of being "very particular" or "finicky" had developed. In the 19th century, "nice" came to mean "pleasant or agreeable" and then "respectable," a sense quite unlike its original meaning.

I understand what some of you are trying to achieve, and eradicating ableism on the forum (or, indeed, anywhere) is a noble goal, but I don't think this is a good way of going about it.

And now, although I hate this song, I feel like lightening the mood in this thread a little. :P

 

[surskitty]

I guess the question is "how recently was the word in question used to describe a certain group of people". TCoD frowns upon the use of 'gay' and 'retarded' as insults because the insulting, marginalizing nature of those words is very much still present. However only some TCoDians are arguing that words such as 'crazy' and 'insane' should be outlawed because the association between those words and mentally ill people, while present, is not as implied in some contexts nearly as much as the association between 'gay' and 'retarded' and their more technical meanings (homosexuality and impaired intelligence) is.

So I guess the real question, for people who are concerned about the use of ableist slurs, is - do you want all words that have negative connotations and have their origin in describing a certain sect of the population to be banned from use, or do you merely want to ban the ones that are still trigger-worthy? Does it have to do with whether the word is still used to refer to said sect of the population?

I'm uncomfortable with the word 'crazy'; I just fucking hate speaking up. And 'crazy' to mean 'unbelievable' is a pretty common thing regardless of where it's applied. And, uh, ew.

how about we go for ones that definitely are making people uncomfortable and not worry about ones where the etymology is far enough removed no one cares

i don't think anyone is proposing telling people to stop saying 'sinister'.

 

[octobr]

if someone

asks you not to use a word

because it upsets them

then don't

use

the word

how is this difficult i don't understand i really really don't why do we have to argue about what the word ~*ACTUALLY*~ means and whether its impact is really important and if it'll lead to this that or the other thing why do we have to argue that instead of say 'oh dang, this upsets at least one person! we should stop.'

ssss

 

[Minish]

I'm not touching much else, but you lot are playing devil's advocate way more than is necessary! No-one has argued in favour of enforcing vocabulary checks for some time now. Nobody really wants to do that, so nobody is going to respond to you!

We can theorise about imaginary scenarios and the limits of what we do forever but what matters most is actual practice. I've never been requested to respect a particularly unconventional or 'silly' trigger. I've never been asked not to use 'sinister' because left-handed people aren't actually oppressed by this ... whereas 'crazy' is used to dismiss mentally ill people on a daily basis.

Yes, it's impossible to be perfect about this. We are all in agreement there. The point is putting it into practice, which is a lot harder than theorising about slippery slopes, and trying to make the least amount of people unhappy as possible.

If you don't really have anything new to say, please consider not continuing this one for the sake of devil's advocacy.

 

[Autumn]

I'm uncomfortable with the word 'crazy'; I just fucking hate speaking up. And 'crazy' to mean 'unbelievable' is a pretty common thing regardless of where it's applied. And, uh, ew.

how about we go for ones that definitely are making people uncomfortable and not worry about ones where the etymology is far enough removed no one cares

i don't think anyone is proposing telling people to stop saying 'sinister'.

if someone

asks you not to use a word

because it upsets them

then don't

use

the word

how is this difficult i don't understand i really really don't why do we have to argue about what the word ~*ACTUALLY*~ means and whether its impact is really important and if it'll lead to this that or the other thing why do we have to argue that instead of say 'oh dang, this upsets at least one person! we should stop.'

ssss

I never said I would continue to use certain words because of the fact that it's hard to tell what is offensive and what isn't! If someone doesn't want me to use a word I won't and I'm sorry that I gave off the impression that I'm that fucking insensitive, since that wasn't my intention. I was just talking about, if addendums were to be made to the rules along the lines of "words with a) negative connotations b) origins in relating to certain minorities are to be banned", where do you make the distinctions? ... is all I was saying. I'm going to make an effort to stop using some words but my replacement for crazy/insane was going to be absurd and it's like, but that can be offensive as well so what ...

but I'm sorry if I've come across negatively, really!!

 

[octobr]

i think it's pretty logical that you're not going to be like reported and banned the first time you use a word someone finds upsetting. they're going to ask you not to use it and after that it's up to you not to be rude

unless it's something obviously assholish in which case, well

 

[Autumn]

well alright then! I'll shut up in this thread now and just make an effort to be more conscientious.

 

[Butterfree]

When it comes to crazy, etc., those words very much are still used to refer to mental illness, which I think is a bit different from words nobody even associates with where they originated. If there were an actual person here who was hurt by the word 'absurd', then yeah, let's not use it... but I doubt that considerably more than I doubted the presence of people who are triggered by "crazy" etc., because that doesn't have the connection to the disability at all anymore, unlike "crazy" which still has it but has just become pretty divorced from it in many contexts. Nobody ever, ever uses "absurd" today to mean anything relating to deafness, or to disparage people who are, and the same with "sinister"; what I was saying about magical thinking in one of my earlier posts applies. There is no pathway through which using those words with their current meaning can contribute to oppression, nor can I see how they could trigger people when only very few people alive today even know the old meaning, much less have heard them used as slurs.

Actual non-trolling members of the forums have come out and said they're personally made uncomfortable when they hear the word 'crazy' even in innocuous contexts; I don't think going "but it doesn't hurt anyone" makes a lot of sense at this point. No, we're not talking about infracting people for it - we've never been talking about that. We're talking about polite requests to find different words. It's a bit different from being pickle-phobic when it is rooted in actual oppression and discrimination that hordes of people experience.

 

[yiran]

I'm really confused about why it's even relevant! Throwing harmful words around has basically zero similarities to choosing to play games and then not having time for the games!

Yes. But well, I have to be proved to be egotistical for it to end, because I like comparing my personal situations with bigger situations! Yet people just grasp on errors in the small situation and ignore the logic part of my argument on the big situation! Yes, I am egotistical. Wait, is that a mental illness classification? Does that give me more right to whine about stuff? So if I'm disabled I have more right to have opinions on matters? That's what I've interpreted from reading some posts in this thread.

Anyway, that's straying quite far in a paragraph that's not exactly long.

Okay, so intelligence is probably ableist by most of your standards. It isn't by mine. I've already said why in my first post.

And I do know what being inferior feels like. Not in the mental sense, but I'm the worst at Art in my year. And it's not like as if I ask the teacher to give me a higher grade just because I might get offended by a lower grade. It's completely fair to give person with mental illness that cannot perform well a lower grade.

And for another example, is it fair to ask a group of children against their will to stop playing their basketball game and instead play video games with a disabled kid? If they're forced to not play basketball, that's a group of unhappy kids and one happy kid. If they continue playing basketball, that's one unhappy kid and a group of unhappy kids. I think having the majority to be satisfied is more humane. Of course, if you're trying to persuade the sporty kids to do it without any force, that'd be fine, but they have the right to do whatever they want (well, when they're adults anyway, and that's what this analogy is really about).

That's how the society works.

You might have a problem with that. I don't. Most of the society doesn't. People who are stronger get better treatment. That's how we evolved. That's how we will always be. If you disagree, you can rant about it all you want.

I'm not heartless as you may think me to be. I excel in maths and sciences, and I frequently help people who aren't so good at the subjects to achieve better grades. No one but one of my friends help me for art, so it's not like it's for profit or anything. I don't just want to isolate all inferior people. But if they get worse on their test, they get worse on their test. It's quite simple, really.

(This place is so liberal it starts becoming not liberal of slightly less un-liberal ideas anymore. D: )

+++
And just to be somewhat relevant to the main discussion about whether words such as "crazy" are allowed, well, I don't really use those kind of words, but I personally would rather have them not banned because it allows me to judge a person's character better over the Internet. Like people who swear against me or call me stuff! I'm not offended, I just gain more knowledge and insight, and knowledge is power! And power is helpful. Well, if other people get offended by it, sure, don't use it against them, but using it on me's completely fine. :D

 

[shy ♡]

(This place is so liberal it starts becoming not liberal of slightly less un-liberal ideas anymore. D: )

You clearly do not understand what 'liberal' means. It does not mean 'accepting of all things'. It means I have certain viewpoints on certain things. Liberal is no more accepting of all things than conservatism is. It just accepts different things. I will say again I am not going to pretend that I accept your views when your views are clearly bigoted and douchy.

If you openly admit that you are egotistical, and you literally think that being egotistical is a mental illness, there is no point in even talking to you. (There isn't any point talking to you regardless because you are using social darwinism as an excuse to be an asshole.)

 

[Butterfree]

Yes. But well, I have to be proved to be egotistical for it to end! Yes, I am egotistical. Wait, is that a mental illness classification? Does that give me more right to whine about stuff? So if I'm disabled I have more right to have opinions on matters? That's what I've interpreted from reading some posts in this thread.

For Christ's sake, nobody at all has said only disabled people can have an opinion. We're not saying you can't have an opinion; we're saying your opinion is bigoted and ignorant, quite apart from how big your ego is or how able-bodied you are or any other properties of you as a person.

And for another example, is it fair to ask a group of children against their will to stop playing their basketball game and instead play video games with a disabled kid? If they're forced to not play basketball, that's a group of unhappy kids and one happy kid. If they continue playing basketball, that's one unhappy kid and a group of unhappy kids. I think having the majority to be satisfied is more humane.

This is nonsense. Any game they play is going to preclude them playing some other game in that gym class; acting as if doing X instead of Y is infringing on their right to do Y is just silly. Nobody is preventing those kids from playing basketball; they just can't do so with somebody who is unable to play basketball, and in a gym class that needs to pick an activity everyone in the class can take part in, they're going to have to pick something other than basketball. Anyone is free to play basketball at any other time that isn't organized by a school funded partly by the taxes of that disabled student (or their parents).

I don't think anybody is saying people can't be good at things, or better than other people at things; like I was getting at in one of my previous posts, the problem with intelligence is more the classification of some kids as just being all-around better than others based on their scores at particular mental tasks.

(This place is so liberal it starts becoming not liberal of slightly less un-liberal ideas anymore. D: )

Arguing is not discrimination. You have a right to speak your mind, to the extent allowed by the rules; you don't have a right to not be criticized for your ideas no matter how abhorrent. In case you haven't noticed, we're arguing for the rights of disabled people, not for the sanctity of disabled people's ideas. Nobody's ideas are sacred, but people should be treated with respect and dignity. Comparing discrimination of people with "discrimination against ideas" (i.e. people strongly disagreeing with your particular ideas, oh no) and somehow finding the latter to be the problem is ridiculous.

 

[yiran]

Somewhere it has been said that "you as an able-bodied person have no idea how the disabled feel" and there is a strong implication that I don't have the right to argue about this topic.

You know, since this isn't a legal argument or anything, I'm not going to check things up, but I'm pretty sure schools don't have the right to alter able-bodied students' courses for a minority of disabled students. (Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.)

Oh and it's not something as trivial as silly or nonsense if they're forced to cater to the disabled against their will when they have the right to go through with what they would have done.

"...the problem with intelligence is more the classification of some kids as just being all-around better than others based on their scores at particular mental tasks."

Well, if it's true, then it's true. If it does it without being testing all-round and having solid evidence, then it is at fault, but fundamentally the concept "intelligence" is fine.

As for liberalness, people have been calling me "ass" and my views are "douchy" (which clearly implies that I'm a "douchebag". And, well, that's not very liberal, is it? Liberal means to be accepting of new things instead of old, while all I see is this community striving to keep their old views.

Also, if you're arguing against others' opinions, then you pretty much are "bigoted". So yeah. And yes, I guess I am ignorant to some degree of people who suffer from the supposed ableism brought up; but if it were the real condition, I would really just stay happy in the knowledge that I am of higher intelligence than people that don't have this "high intelligence", because they have nothing to do with me and I don't really care if they exist or even worse, use it as an excuse to hinder everyone else. So I guess I am heartless after all, huh? Well, I'm with those who support being self-serving, because... we're animals evolved to do that.

 

[surskitty]

I don't think anybody is saying people can't be good at things, or better than other people at things; like I was getting at in one of my previous posts, the problem with intelligence is more the classification of some kids as just being all-around better than others based on their scores at particular mental tasks.

I'd say it's also that there's definitely a perception that if you're not one of the ones who get good at a given thing quickly, or what other people perceive as easily, it's not worth trying to do it. Even if you're not the fastest at, say, learning how to write well, that doesn't mean you shouldn't write; if you want to write, write. The way to fail at writing is to stop. Expecting everyone to conform to the same standards is absurd. Telling someone they're not smart, or not as smart as this other person, and implying that that means they shouldn't try to learn what they find interesting or fun because they might not be as good at it as someone else is both really common and fucked up.

Regardless of how ableist the concept of intelligence is, it's not actually productive in a lot of contexts it gets used in. Intelligence tends to get weighted heavier than interest or effort.

 

[shy ♡]

As for liberalness, people have been calling me "ass" and my views are "douchy" (which clearly implies that I'm a "douchebag". And, well, that's not very liberal, is it? Liberal means to be accepting of new things instead of old, while all I see is this community striving to keep their old views.

Also, if you're arguing against others' opinions, then you pretty much are "bigoted". So yeah. And yes, I guess I am ignorant to some degree of people who suffer from the supposed ableism brought up; but I would really just stay happy in the knowledge that I am of higher intelligence than people with mental illness, because they have nothing to do with me and I don't really care if they exist or even worse, use it as an excuse to hinder everyone else. So I guess I am heartless after all, huh? Well, I'm with those who support being self-serving, because... we're animals evolved to do that.

I ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT IS NOT WHAT LIBERALISM FUCKING MEANS. In addition THAT IS NOT WHAT BIGOTRY MEANS. Arguing with someone else does not make you a bigot are you fucking serious.

Why don't you just go pray to your Ayn Rand bibles then ok :) :) :)

 

[Butterfree]

Somewhere it has been said that "you as an able-bodied person have no idea how the disabled feel" and there is a strong implication that I don't have the right to argue about this topic.

Well, yes, if you're not disabled, you may not know what you're talking about once you get to trying to make statements about how disabled people feel. Saying you're uninformed on a particular topic because you haven't actually experienced it isn't bigotry or silencing. If you started going on about how menstruation feels, it would also be perfectly valid to go, "Uh, being that you don't have a uterus, you don't really know what you're talking about." That's not discrimination; it's just a fact about your qualifications to speak on subject X. Someone who has been in a wheelchair all their life trying to speak about how running feels would get the same thing - only that doesn't really happen, because mostly it's majorities that think they know better than minorities what their own experiences are like, not the other way around.

You know, since this isn't a legal argument or anything, I'm not going to check things up, but I'm pretty sure schools don't have the right to alter able-bodied students' courses for a minority of disabled students. (Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.)

Oh and it's not something as trivial as silly or nonsense if they're forced to cater to the disabled against their will when they have the right to go through with what they would have done.

What? ?_? They don't have a "right to go through with what they would have done". What kind of a "right" even is that? If that were a right, you'd have to allow everything. Say you're going to punch someone, and then someone points out that actually assault is illegal. Are they trying to "force you to cater to the victim against your will"? Do you have a "right to go through with what you would have done" and punch them anyway? Yes, this really is exactly analogous. Willfully excluding disabled people from public school activities hurts them. It's not magically okay because they planned it before taking the disabled student into account.

As for liberalness, people have been calling me "ass" and my views are "douchy" (which clearly implies that I'm a "douchebag". And, well, that's not very liberal, is it?

pathos said you were "being an asshole" and that your views were "douchy", which, while toeing the line, is still targeting your behaviour in the thread and not you as a person. Not that that has anything whatsoever to do with liberalness, or that it would matter one bit if it did (even if you were to define liberalness as smiling and nodding when people are being bigoted, all I have to say to that is, "Well, then I'm not liberal").

Liberal means to be accepting of new things instead of old, while all I see is this community striving to keep their old views.

Excluding disabled people and refusing to accommodate them is the "old view". If liberalism meant what you think it means, then liberals would be forced to constantly change their minds back and forth, because after all, when you've convinced them they shouldn't accommodate the disabled, somebody else could come along and argue that they should, and they'd have to accept that "new view". Again, if you do define it to mean that, then no, we're not liberals! Going "You're liberals, so because I define it as X you're supposed to believe X" is nonsense; we believe what we believe, and "liberal" is just a descriptor that encompasses some of it (when used correctly, that is, and not in the ridiculous strawman definitions you keep making up). Saying our opinions aren't liberal just means we're not liberal by whatever definition you're using, not that oh, no, our ~liberal identity~ means we must change our opinions to conform to what liberalism is supposed to be. We don't believe these things because we've adopted a label called "liberal" and think this is what being "liberal" means; we believe these things because we think all people should have equal rights and respect. You can use any word you like for that for all I care, but I'm whichever word means that.

Also, if you're arguing against others' opinions, then you pretty much are "bigoted". So yeah.

By your definition, then sure, I'm bigoted, and so is everyone else who meaningfully cares about anything that matters. You're disagreeing and arguing with us, too; are people only bigots in your view if they disagree with you?

Again: there is a difference between opinions and people. There is nothing intolerant about criticizing somebody's opinions. (Or, if you decide to hijack the definition of 'intolerant' too, criticizing somebody's opinions and discriminating against them as people are two completely different things, and I (and most people here) are against the latter but not the former.)

And yes, I guess I am ignorant to some degree of people who suffer from the supposed ableism brought up; but I would really just stay happy in the knowledge that I am of higher intelligence than people with mental illness, because they have nothing to do with me and I don't really care if they exist or even worse, use it as an excuse to hinder everyone else. So I guess I am heartless after all, huh? Well, I'm with those who support being self-serving, because... we're animals evolved to do that.

Evolution does not mean what you think it means. Normal human beings are perfectly capable of having compassion for people who are suffering, and that moral sense is at least partly evolved, through fairly well-understood evolutionary mechanisms. Caring only about yourself is is not mandated by nature, and that is not an excuse. (EDIT: To say this less stupidly: morality is probably partly evolved, and selflessness can definitely occur in nature. But even that is irrelevant, because "it's natural" has no bearing on its moral status. Morality is only derived from what's evolutionarily advantageous in a very, very distant, abstract sense, and then only in a setting-certain-rules-of-thumb-which-we-then-follow-regardless-of-actual-adaptive-value way.)

If you truly just don't give a damn about others and happily think you're just better than disabled people, good for you, but you can't wave a magic wand and forbid us to think that's a morally abhorrent viewpoint.

 

[Blastoise Fortooate]

I'm not quite educated enough to contribute well to the argument proper, in my opinion, but...

Well, I'm with those who support being self-serving, because... we're animals evolved to do that.

An example of an animal less advanced than a human showing selflessness.

[A rat that can open cages is experimented upon] [Scientists] placed rats in a Plexiglass pen with two cages: in one was another rat, in the other was a pile of five milk chocolate chips—a favorite snack of these particular rodents. The unrestricted rats could easily have eaten the chocolate themselves before freeing their peers or been so distracted by the sweets that they would neglect their imprisoned friends. Instead, most of the rats opened both cages and shared in the chocolate chip feast.

Turns out that animals aren't always jerks.

 

[yiran]

Regardless of how ableist the concept of intelligence is, it's not actually productive in a lot of contexts it gets used in. Intelligence tends to get weighted heavier than interest or effort.

This is correct. However, it is productive and beneficial to the persons who are measuring intelligence (otherwise they just wouldn't do it), and I know this is just plain unfair but sometimes intelligence actually does matter more than interest effort.

That's not discrimination; it's just a fact about your qualifications to speak on subject X.

Arguments don't need qualifications. And I've already given a (admittedly minor) example of where I'm of the less abled and how I've felt about it, so I'm technically qualified for that too.

What kind of a "right" even is that?

Right to basic education that would have happened without the disabled person?

Willfully excluding disabled people from public school activities hurts them.

A lot of random things hurt random people.

And also, there's a difference between this and the analogy you made; one is actively trying to hurt someone and the other is passively ignoring them.

pathos said you were "being an asshole" and that your views were "douchy", which, while toeing the line, is still targeting your behaviour in the thread and not you as a person.

So rules should be followed strictly to guidelines without concern of contextual knowledge? Come on, I mean, you've already admitted he's toeing the line, but you're still defending him because it fits the forum rules. But then again it's your forum so, whatever you say.

By your definition, then sure, I'm bigoted,

What I mean is that if you think I'm bigoted, then you are too. For the record, I don't think any of us is bigoted.

Again: there is a difference between opinions and people. There is nothing intolerant about criticizing somebody's opinions.

There is, but it's quite subtle. Criticising somebody's opinions heavily with vulgar language might as well just be criticising that person. Not that I care about it happening to myself, but.

Caring only about yourself is is not mandated by nature, and that is not an excuse.

Care to explain why that isn't an excuse?

If you truly just don't give a damn about others and happily think you're just better than disabled people, good for you, but you can't wave a magic wand and forbid us to think that's a morally abhorrent viewpoint.

Well, at least I can salvage in the rest of the world not thinking my view as an morally abhorrent viewpoint ;_; but yes I'm morally abhorrent, if that's what you want to think me as! I still think every person should be valued by what they are and how useful they are! But you're just oxytocin overloaded people to me, and not all that practical either s:

+++
Anyway, the reason why we (and animals) help others is because we can expect help in return when we are in a time of need. It's probably what subconsciously drives me to help my friends with things. Every single act that an organism does is rooted to the survival of themselves and/or their genes. (Unless there was a mutation or something and their brain wiring went wrong but that's kinda irrelevant.)
+++

If we consider everyone equal, then aren't we just faceless beings without any strengths or weaknesses that matter?

(Wow that just sounded like anti-Communist stuff)

 

[Blastoise Fortooate]

Every single act that an organism does is rooted to the survival of themselves and/or their genes.

Haircuts? Art? Skydiving? Masturbation? Debating the policy towards ableism on a pokémon forum?

 

[surskitty]

And for another example, is it fair to ask a group of children against their will to stop playing their basketball game and instead play video games with a disabled kid? If they're forced to not play basketball, that's a group of unhappy kids and one happy kid. If they continue playing basketball, that's one unhappy kid and a group of unhappy kids. I think having the majority to be satisfied is more humane. Of course, if you're trying to persuade the sporty kids to do it without any force, that'd be fine, but they have the right to do whatever they want (well, when they're adults anyway, and that's what this analogy is really about).

okay I'm not going to respond to most of this because there is only so much I have the energy for, but ... video games? really?
people with physical disabilities can still do sports, or at least exercise, even if not always the same things or in the same ways
for one, there is this thing known as the paralympics
even with things like Ehlers-Danlos (which causes joint hyperextension among a billion other things; it is genetic and awful) or much more minor things like POTS (which involves nasty things with blood pressure and fainting) or asthma, there is still physical activity people can and should do! not necessarily at the same speed, or in the same amounts, but everyone needs exercise.

If someone has significant enough physical issues that they can't participate in PE class, with either a more personalised thing (one of my friends and I got out of doing a lot of things in high school PE in exchange for instead walking around the track all class period. Unfortunately, in middle school, none of my teachers accommodated me at all and instead I just hoped very hard I wouldn't faint. This worked about as well as you could guess. Actually, slightly better: I skipped class a lot. Fainting sucks. I wouldn't recommend it.) or having a curriculum that's a bit less insistent on SPORTS. TEAM SPORTS. TEAM SPORTS ALL THE TIME, then they should really be excused from PE. But consider: archery exists. Weight-lifting is easy to adjust to the speeds someone can actually go at.

Accommodating people is not nearly as hard as you seem to think it is. Schools do tend to have people with disabilities either suck it up (which. doesn't work so well.) or do something else, but this isn't nearly as necessary as some teachers act like it is. Archery unit! I have been in a PE class where that happened and it was the one time I didn't absolutely hate having to go to school on days I had PE. Holy shit, not getting yelled at for not wanting to do things that make me physically ill, who WOULD have thought.

Accommodating people also doesn't mean fucking everyone else over. I am not sure where you are getting this.

That scenario's also pretty tired and irrelevant, given that it's in response to having to refrain from being an asshole by using a few words that make people very upset. What, are you next going to object loudly to the rule about not posting flashing gifs outside of a hide tag?

At the moment it looks like you're having a hell of a time figuring out that people with disabilities are people. Not everyone's body works ideally! Sometimes the bits that don't work quite right (or quite like everyone else's) include the brain. It happens. Doesn't make people with disabilities less people than people without.