makeroomforthejolyghost

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

This is just ableism.

No, needing a wheelchair isn't always harder. No, phobias are not always easy. Neither is ADHD. And so on. It's almost as if disabled experiences are not a monolith.

As someone who has ADHD, phobias, and other neurodisabilities AND needs a power chair to leave the house, that I don't have, it's almost as if I have access needs that cause COMPOUNDED INACCESSIBILITY. Like, there's no comparing one disability to another, especially since the severity and level of inaccessibility where you live can vary wildly, BUT if you have TWO severe disabilities that BOTH cause severe accessibility issues you in fact have minimally double the lack of access!

But sure, just laugh at the severely neurodisabled people, you fucking ableist bitch. Yeah, it's still ableist when you're disabled. Stay in your fucking lane, which includes not speaking for all people with emetophobia if you have it more mildly than your physical disabilities. And the ADHD comment is just like. Congrats! You know nothing! Do you want a reward for your willful and malicious ignorance? Because I can almost guarantee people have explained how disabled ADHD can be and you either told them it was a different disability or outright laughed at, made fun of, or were disgusted by them. Fuck off forever.

Anyway don't have the spoons for a long analysis, I'm just tired and done right now. First video when I log in to watch my silly little reddit drama stories. FML.

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

a lot of disabled people do not understand how disabled they are--or even that they have disabilities at all--because they don't think of people with disabilities as real people. they don't have friendships with people with disabilities--unless those people are similarly in denial about disability/have ableist beliefs about others and themselves.

if you are like that, you probably don't realize a lot of things about people with disabilities. you probably don't understand people with disabilities are living real lives, with support or not, and are everywhere. so you think you can't relate to people with disabilities.

here are some things that might mean that, yes, you have a disability and you are not so different after all from people you think you have nothing in common with:

it is painful to go out into the community. are you only able to leave your home once a week, twice a month, even less? is it hard to get yourself to even go to a park? the store? are the lights too bright and the interactions too hard? yeah so that's called having a disability. you may need habilitation supports. sadly, those are being cut all the time and if it never gets fully funded you may never receive them.

do you have trouble navigating the community while you are out? have you crossed the street without realizing there were still cars on the road? have you been hit by a car or almost hit by a car because you didn't understand where you were in relation to it? that's a disability experience. again, habilitation supports (specific to navigation) might be useful to you.

do you struggle to cook for yourself? are you too exhausted from a relatively normal workload to make even a simple meal? is it too difficult to understand the steps of a recipe? are you really particular with the food you eat and it is sometimes hard to shop for yourself? you have a disability. people who qualify for caregiving support very often get support with these things, although it's usually not enough. because of, again, budget cuts.

are you struggling to get employed or stay employed? are the tasks always too much even though some coworkers, who may still be stressed, seem to manage? are some basic tasks really hard when others don't think it's that hard? are you never a right "culture" fit? do people look at you weird and you're literally just doing nothing to them? are you always on the brink of crisis when you are working, even if it's part time hours? yeah you are disabled. look into whether you qualify for Vocational Rehabilitation services, tbh.

do you struggle with hygiene? is it too painful or mentally overwhelming to go through all the steps of showering? of brushing your teeth? putting on deodorant? going to the bathroom? doing laundry? yeah, that's a disability. people who qualify for caregiving services very often get support with one or all of these things.

do you feel like you can only be alert and able to do ANYTHING for a very limited time of the day? for me, it's like three hours. are you maybe awake for longer but it's almost impossible to think or do something? this is called being disabled! you have a limited number of "usable hours" in a day.

do you live with your parents because you are unable to live alone, without support? and I don't mean financial support, necessarily. I mean like you have trouble with making sure you eat, sleep, and stuff like that. you are disabled.

are you in pain? do you need specific rituals or equipment, even if it's something as simple as ear defenders, to reduce the pain enough to get through the limited tasks you have during a day? you are disabled.

is one or more of these things temporary because of depression? depression is a serious disability. temporary disabilities exist. a lot of people experience temporary disability by experiencing pregnancy. also, the severity of disability fluctuates. a lot of autistic people experience something called "autistic burnout," which is a severe regression in 'skills' (tasks of daily living, speaking, etc.) that can occur in adulthood. for some people, long covid is a temporary disability (in many others it is permanent).

you may now understand you have legitimate needs. you may now understand you have significant barriers to community inclusion, employment, and education. you are a person with a disability who experiences both the bodily limitations you have and the systemic discrimination that all people with disabilities experience.

the world you need is the world that supports people who have more significant disabilities than you. the world you need is the world where you and other people with disabilities identify that your enemy is not other disabled people but it is the system that devalues disability. the world you need is a world where you recognize the basic humanity of people with disabilities. if you are not disabled yet, you probably will become disabled one day when you get older.

here's how I challenge internalized ableism, something that is harmful to both myself and other disabled people:

being a self advocate

being friends/colleagues with other self advocates with 'severe' disabilities

working in the disability field

understanding disability more

you don't have to do any of these (although I think you SHOULD befriend people with more 'severe' disabilities)

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

For the purposes of this poll, do NOT count the following:

Your own birth (unless there were complications/urgent concerns)

Routine check-ups or scheduled-in-advance appointments that just happened to be at a hospital

Visiting or accompanying someone else to the hospital

Use your discretion as to whether to count visits to urgent care.

–

We ask your questions anonymously so you don’t have to! Submissions are open on the 1st and 15th of the month.

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

interested vs. not interested in romantic relationships is absolutely a useful distinction! what i find less than useful is that "aromantic" by itself doesn't imply "not interested in romantic relationships"; to get that across i have to say i'm a "romance-averse aromantic"

like. it's not bad to have a word for not experiencing romantic attraction that doesn't comment on whether the user wants relationships or not? it's just odd that aromantic is the macrolabel while romance-favorable/-indifferent/-averse are its optional microlabels. even though the latter question ("do i want a romantic partner?") is way more urgent for most questioning aspecs than, like. "do i get crushes on people, and, if yes, are they the same in kind as the ones allos get"

i dont think aromantic people "dont exist" but i do think the concept of aromanticism is really weirdly frought, its referring to a philosophical object whose nature is unclear. so its strange to think of it as an "identity category" the way like, "gay" is (demisexuality has this same problem but way worse).

like, the underlying philosophical problem is how we know what we're referring to when we talk about emotions. when you say the word "love", do you mean the same thing i do when i talk about "love"? and this isnt some hypothetical question like "do we see the same red", this leads to practical confusion! there's the notion of "love at first sight", and when people disagree about whether this exists it seems theyre disagreeing on what "love" refers to, pretty explicitly! it seems plausible to me that the subjective experienced referred to by "love" are really not that similar between people.

imo the largest axis of variance here is something like the "limerence axis". people experience intense obsessive fixation on other people, related to the feelings referred to as sexual or romantic, to vastly varying degrees (some people it seems almost all the time, some people never or almost never). but its not clear to me what the distribution is like on this, whether most people experience limerence often. and its hard to ask about, its confusing and ambiguous

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

i'm aroace but i kind of agree with the doubters in this thread, if i'm honest

i've called myself asexual since i was 15 (i'm 31), and when i started using the label i meant by it, "i'm not interested in having sex or in the kind of relationships typically associated with sex." in my mind at that time, asexual implied exactly that, unless the particular asexual person stated otherwise

(it was 2008 so discourse norms around asexuality were different, but, to be fair, i was probably also typical-minding. i'd never met another asexual person, so in my social circles i got to make up the rules)

this doesn't work for me anymore, since "we can still want sex" and "we can still want romance" are so often foregrounded in explanations of asexuality. so i reluctantly added on the aromantic label, even tho i'm not certain it fits. like transgenderer, i think the concept of romantic love is poorly defined. my lack of interest in romantic relationships is more practical and deliberate than it is an essential part of my character. i wasn't born finding kissing and handholding unpleasant and heart-shaped chocolate boxes tacky; i dislike them because in our culture they're courting rituals. they derive their sentimental value from their association with sex, and with the supposed specialness of companionships that include sex. but i have experienced (non-sexual) infatuation! not in a long-ass time, but it has happened. i just don't express obsession or devotion in romantic-looking ways. for me, these feelings are different from friendship only in degree, not kind. to call them romantic would misrepresent them, since that word implies intentions i don't have

but the part i find even more frustrating is that "aromantic" defines an internal experience--not an externally-observable preference pattern (unlike "gay" and "straight," which for most people describe both those things at once). i don't need a label to explain the truth about my soul; i need one to help other people understand and predict my behavior. i think that centering the kinds of attraction we feel hinders aspec people's communication nearly as often as it helps. and this is the tradition we inherited from lgbts

(i think the ship's basically sailed on including these identities under the lgbt umbrella, though. like, we've de facto included them for so long that we couldn't kick them out without cruelty. i just wonder if some aspecs--the ones like me who want a label that helps other people predict our behavior--might benefit more from a paradigm that centered actions instead of emotional experiences.)

but that doesn't mean i think aroaces w/ romantic partners whom they enjoy pleasing sexually are Not Real? i believe them when they say that "attraction" isn't what brought them into their relationships. i just wonder why people like this consider it useful to identify publicly and preemptively with the labels aromantic and asexual. wanting to show you're proud i understand; wanting to lead by example in ending the stigma around non-normative sexual/romantic experiences makes sense. but, again, that's a habit we inherited from the lgbt tradition, and idk how well it suits our needs to prioritize pride--saying out loud how queer you are and daring normies to accept you--at the expense of effective communication.

like, isn't the aroace label kind of a chore to explain to people? it is for me, but i do it anyway since it explains why i'm happily single and why i'm a total wet blanket to talk about romance and sex with. but for people whose sex/love lives look pretty normal from the outside... why? telling your partners, yeah, totally. but randos? how does it help either them or you to learn this about you? is it just that it marks you as lgbt, and so invites other lgbt people to seek you out as a friend? this is where i kind of agree w/ brazenautomaton: if a label can equally well describe my experience and the opposite of it, then that label often becomes--well, not useless, just. more useful at signaling one's values (pro-lgbt) than describing one's actual behavior.

i dont think aromantic people "dont exist" but i do think the concept of aromanticism is really weirdly frought, its referring to a philosophical object whose nature is unclear. so its strange to think of it as an "identity category" the way like, "gay" is (demisexuality has this same problem but way worse).

like, the underlying philosophical problem is how we know what we're referring to when we talk about emotions. when you say the word "love", do you mean the same thing i do when i talk about "love"? and this isnt some hypothetical question like "do we see the same red", this leads to practical confusion! there's the notion of "love at first sight", and when people disagree about whether this exists it seems theyre disagreeing on what "love" refers to, pretty explicitly! it seems plausible to me that the subjective experienced referred to by "love" are really not that similar between people.

imo the largest axis of variance here is something like the "limerence axis". people experience intense obsessive fixation on other people, related to the feelings referred to as sexual or romantic, to vastly varying degrees (some people it seems almost all the time, some people never or almost never). but its not clear to me what the distribution is like on this, whether most people experience limerence often. and its hard to ask about, its confusing and ambiguous

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

"glorified" in men?! uhhhh citation needed. in my experience most people just ignore the possibility of disability existing in men, while, like OP describes, vilifying the outward behavior it causes

i'm a chronically ill trans man, so my perspective seems potentially valuable here.

there is one thing about chronic illness as a man that i find preferable to chronic illness as a woman, and that's that if i come into a doctor's office and confidently state my hypothesis about what's going on with me, doctors trust my judgment a little more often now than they did before.*

but every other social aspect of chronic illness i can think of is slightly worse now. people aren't usually unkind to me, personally, when i mention my disabilities; that was true when i lived as a woman and it's still true now.** but i tend to give them secondhand embarrassment now in a way i didn't when they thought i was a woman, i think because we expect and kind of romanticize vulnerability in women, while in men we prefer not to acknowledge it

there's just... no scripts. for chronically ill men. every thinkpiece i've read about chronic illness is by, for, and about women; every advice post i've seen for how to gracefully incorporate medical devices into your wardrobe assumes the reader shops in the women's section. the friendly self-deprecation i relied on before reads as pitiful to most people now, rather than suave. and snark feels out of the question. when i presented as a woman i could get away with channeling dr. house (though i rarely did since i'm shy); now it would come off as aggressive

and i mostly agree w/ OP, or at least with how i understood their point. yes, true, all chronically ill people face ableist judgment, regardless of gender. all of us have our needs ignored, questioned, and denied. but the person described in OP is like. the Bad Husband archetype. like, if an episode in a random sitcom wants to convey to an audience as quickly as possible that character A has a Bad Husband, they'll make him lazy and uncooperative. giving him those traits is one of the most efficients way to get an audience to disrespect a male character.

that was a pretty scary expectation to have to grow into when i became a man.

*n.b. this is especially true of male doctors; female doctors tend to feel more pressure to prove their expertise, and that often makes them more thorough and less easygoing

**in that regard i may be unrepresentative, tbh. and i'm probably typical-minding here in the same way the angry women responding to this thread are

Something that's stuck in my mind is how much "bad man" behavior is chronic illness type stuff that would be coddled and forgiven in a woman.

Shit like, "doesn't pull their weight on household tasks, constantly sleeping, or saying they're too tired to do anything but is playing videogames/watching TV/chatting with friends."

Shit like, "is unemployed/underemployed and either refused to get a (full-time/in their industry rather than low effort low pay) job while insisting they just can't work 40 hours or insisting on work conditions so specific that they're functionally unemployable."

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

Google ai working well and might as well have just called mr mime a faggot

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

🐺 moon-moon4w00 Follow

Friendly reminder that asking your lycan partner to turn you is incredibly insensitive! Seriously can we retire this trope already? Not only is it just offensive, but no one would ever actually choose this life! Lycanthropy is a curse. Full stop.

🐾 superhowllock69 Follow

Ok user "moon-moon" as if that original meme wasn't created to mock pack nomenclature 🙄

Anyway I'm not gonna touch that internalized lycanphobia with a ten foot pole. Being turned by your partner is something that can be incredibly intimate as long as both parties are consenting and the one being turned is 100% sure they want it. Literally the only downside to transforming once a month is the pain, but midol works just fine. No one with these "lycanthropy bad" takes ever wants to discuss the legitimate positives that come with this "curse" lmao.

🐺 moon-moon4w00 Follow

I'm literally reclaiming moon moon but go off I guess. Anyways turning your partner is absolutely disgusting and morally reprehensible and anyone who does it should be muzzled permanently.

🌜 impawssible Follow

lmao my wife literally saved my life when she turned me but i guess she should be muzzled huh? we run through the woods hunting deer together and can each haul in groceries in one trip now, but nooo she's obviously a danger to society because she cares enough about me to help me when insurance wouldn't cover my medicine

also it was confirmed that the creator of that meme literally makes and sells silver bullets so if you still wanna use moon moon for yourself that certainly is a choice. source: (X)

🦴 pupperoni Follow

I love that instead of naming the more common benefits of lycanthropy, you mentioned that you and your wife can carry all the groceries in one trip. I think that's definitely a positive that gets overlooked far too often and I commend you for speaking your truth, sir

🌜 impawssible Follow

lol thanks but I'm a woman 😅

🦴 pupperoni Follow

🦇 count-fuckula Follow

Plus werewolf blood tastes way better and is as filling as 10 humans 👍

🐺 moon-moon4w00 Follow

Oh my GOD you vampblr freaks will just flock to anything. It clearly says "vamps DNI" in my bio!

🐾 superhowllock Follow

lmaoooo of course you're a vampire exclusionist

🌕 daddy-fenris Follow

wasn't OP the same guy who said fursuits were offensive to lycanthropes and doxxed a werewolf fursuiter?

🐺 moon-moon4w00 Follow

They ARE offensive and harmful to this community and I'm tired of pretending they're not. They perpetuate harmful depictions of what a humanoid wolf is actually like.

🌜 impawssible Follow

me when I dox someone for making candy colored animal costumes that look nothing like what a real werewolf does

🦴 pupperoni Follow

K

🌕 daddy-fenris Follow

U

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

cannot emphasize enough

intellectually disabled people do often have strabismus, autism, and whatever the fuck else you're throwing them under the bus to make the ableds like you better for

intellectual disability is commonly comorbid with many disabilities, both physical and neurodevelopmental, to the point that it is considered a sign of them

you are not a better, more valuable disabled person than intellectually disabled people with the same disability as you

and someone assuming you're id is not a fucking insult to you

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

ggggod i’m still not over it sorry. rly pisses me off how common a Disabled Experience it is to ask for help and be refused because you know your own needs well enough to sound competent

like: the patient OP talks about? doesn’t sound like they knew they had an electrolyte imbalance. presumably they showed up to emergency services because their symptoms were severe and strange enough to scare them

but if you have identical symptoms and aren’t scared shitless you just?? don’t get helped? how is that fair!

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

We had a patient last night who was a textbook case of electrolytes imbalance as a result of nausea and vomiting. And I didn’t say this to the patient because I didn’t think they’d appreciate it, but it’s kinda great when the way you are so so sick is like exactly like the textbooks say it’ll be. Like not good that you’re having sudden new onset muscle weakness and tingling, but buddy this is gonna get sorted out with an efficiency you won’t believe. We fixed like 85% of the stuff wrong with this patient by midnight and we marveled the whole time about how this patient was seemingly concocted in a lab so I could walk my trainee through a highly manageable crisis

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

“book lovers” don’t love anything about books and it’s weird (or, defending classic novels)

kevin durant is talking about basketball fans but you’ll understand exactly what he means in a much broader sense if you’re on the basketball side of twitter and immediately recognize the mindset he’s describing — that it’s a sentiment that isn’t really about basketball fans at all, but about how we engage with all sorts of things especially in the social media era. but this tweet is just table-setting. the important thing here is that the rest of this post, about many writers and english teachers and book bloggers and overall people who describe themselves as book-lovers on the internet, can be summed up as a caption to this screenshot that just says “same energy”.

same energy. many writers and supposed booklovers on the internet actively dislike and disparage most literature. and actively dislike and disparage the entire literary tradition of the novel, and the novel as a form, and all the tools or frames of engaging with art, and many of the writers or novels known for beautiful writing, and the books that made up the history and development of the medium and inspired so many more of its writers and inspired stylistic shifts, so much fundamental context for any kind of novel… i’m losing my thread here but the point is, many people who describe themselves as book-lovers, many of them authors themselves or english teachers, will proudly and vocally announce their dislike and hatred of so many classic novels. often what seems like almost all of them.

and will not just proudly say so, but won’t shut up about it. and will bring it up constantly among themselves. it’s not a one-off thing either, this comes up con-fucking-stantly in what feels like almost any conversation about literature. often fully unprompted. and will somehow pretend it’s an original insight and that they’re being bold and brave and controversial and starting a conversation for saying it, when it’s all been discourse every two months for as long as an online commons has existed, and when we all know they got that take from endless cycles of online discourse, and when the reason they say it is because they know people will agree with them, because we’ve seen how that plays out a million times already, b e c a u s e so many other people who like to imagine themselves as brave bold original thinkers for having picked up that opinion in a previous online cycle themselves will respond enthusiastically through some kind of collective pretense that it’s a new conversation.

that’s part of it too, everyone involved in that discussion collectively performs some kind of amnesia where this is a take they’re hearing for the very first time, and speaking a truth they’ve always thought but never felt like it was socially acceptable to say. because that way, you get to feel like an original critical thinker without having to do any critical thinking, or to feel like you have a superior understanding of a piece of media without having any media literacy. and you get to feel some self-flattery about your superior insight for having the originality and courage to believe what is now a pretty mainstream view — maybe not mainstream among literati, but absolutely mainstream in the online commons, enough that you know many people agree with you already because you’ve seen the same agreement and mutual self-congratulation play out in a million online cycles already.

(it feels very disingenuous. maybe it’s not consciously and intentionally disingenuous, maybe it’s just a lack of self-awareness, but it’s like.. you know how we could say a great joke at a family function that we once read on the internet, and they wouldn’t know and would just think you’re just that witty for coming up wiht it? like that, except we’re all on the same internet and we’d all read the same joke already but we all have to pretend we’d never heard it before so we don’t break kayfabe, because that way you can convince yourself that nobody else had seen it before and they all thought you were witty. everyone just performs the exact same roles every time discourse about any given book happens every 2-6 months on the internet. next time, can we all at least not pretend like this isn’t the 26th time we’ve seen this conversation and spare all the “FINALLY someone said it!” “someone needed to start this conversation!” schtick? is that too harsh?)

but anyway. the thing is, alright. if you think jane austen is boring. and that the great gatsby is overrated. and also that the bronte sisters’ books were super problematic (bc heathcliff and rochester with mad wife in the attic are both kinda misogynistic). and also that hemingway is boring posturing. and catcher in the rye is overrated (because the abused kid processing his brother’s death is “annoying”). and that shakespeare is too old english style to be worth reading.

and that only pretentious wannabes read tolstoy or dostoevsky. and as for ursula k le guin or isaac asimov or philip k dick, sci-fi is a boring genre. and that nabokov is weird and kinda suss, and kundera seems like he has an ego and philosophizes too much (will claim to have liked one hundred years of solitude tho bc that’s still seen as fashionable). and only pretentious hipsters read david foster wallace or pynchon or franzen. none of them seem to remember that edith wharton exists. some quote george eliot as another white man, or just don’t mention her at all.

and never even mention chinua achebe or toni morrison or james baldwin or arundhati roy. and — this is something i actually saw being said on twitter in conversations between english teachers, authors, and people who call themselves book bloggers — say “kazuo ishiguro is only read by white people who want to feel smart but is actually full of weird stuff” while including a screenshot from a haruki murakami novel. even though ishiguro and murakami write very different books in very different styles, one has lived in the uk his whole life and his best known books are all set in the uk while the other is a japanese pop writer, and they have very little in common aside from a kinda sparse prose style and being ethnically asian…

at that point, do you even like literature?

having a few or couple of those opinions is one thing, people’s tastes vary and i don’t expect everyone to love every supposed literary classic, i’ll admit to not enjoying ‘a separate peace’ at all — but so many writers online proudly announce pretty much all of this. and it’s usually not even with specific justification about the specific author or book, just broad strokes commentary. a lot of it seems to be half-remembered from bored high school years, books where they barely remember what even happened during them but retained their opinions on them with full unwavering confidence, a lot of the comments that sound like someone who’s only vaguely heard of the book and not even to the level of reading the wikipedia page to check, who misunderstood the main themes and seems to not have tried to critically engage with it at all.

honestly, i know most people online’s clever opinions about books are just regurgitated from the internet. i’m pretty convinced this applies to 80% of all mentions of the catcher in the rye online, for example. fuck it, here’s the screenshot of the ishiguro/murakami incident i mentioned a couple paragraphs back:

  Keep reading

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

differences in degree are not differences in kind. you don't need a special bespoke medical term just to say "very very"

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

am hours late but wanted to record my thoughts on new pokemon game announcement so future me can look back and laugh

don't care about megas* but still happy to see them back. please flygon this time?

is this the future or past?? the fact that the trailer's art style leaves even this ambiguous worries me a little. but i've also seen people declare confidently that it's been "confirmed" it takes place in the past. can't tell if this is literally true or if what they actually mean is "from my analysis of the trailer i am certain of this"

lack of gameplay footage also concerning, but probably a good business decision considering how bad gameplay footage made their last few trailers look lmao

ppl seem really disappointed by the "entirely in lumiose city" thing but idg why? that's different enough from any previous game that i'm curious to see it. i guess maybe that sounds more linear and fans want more open world? but the narrow scope sounds cool to me; it implies having an Actual Objective from the start of the game, which is so different from most pokemon games (where you just kinda dick around for 80% of the game and then get told about a world-ending event you need to fix) that i'm here for it

kinda glad they skipped unova since i couldn't envision a unova remake/revisit that would have pleased me. but also... really? all unova gets is a few homages in indigo disk? indigo disk sucked tho

mildly sad no johto bc i love johto but i didn't consciously want johto, you know? like i didn't endorse my wish for johto; i just get happy whenever i see it

i got so genuinely, viscerally irritated when the trailer started with pikachu, i think bc in my mind pikachu represents reassurance/pandering to the babiest of baby fans. does anyone actually need that? is anyone really going to feel lost if pikachu's not there to guide them? (this is not an important insight i just find it funny in retrospect that my first reaction was negative for suck a nitpicky reason)

but also, i saw one guy suggest maybe we're going to switch off playing from a human and pokemon perspective? this would be cool conceptually, but i will like it only if it's nothing like the synchro feature in indigo disk. if we sometimes inhabit a pokemon protagonist with their own agenda that involves communicating with humans, that will be cool; if we as a trainer command a pokemon whom we then go complete missions as (e.g., like, the rocket hideout puzzle in let's go but in first person), no thanks

that's all assuming that the blurb about "a vision of beautiful coexistence between people and pokemon" is a hint/loadbearing detail and not just fluff? i see people hanging a lot of speculations on that line but like... aren't there lines like that in every pokemon game? it could just be fluff

thank god for 2025 release. please be november like main-series games and not, like, january

*1. most of them look dumb to me 2. seems kinda cruel? like forcing your pets into a berserker rage. idk. but most importantly 3. i like that they buffed weak pokemon but what's the point if you're also gonna buff, like, garchomp

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

Congrats?

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

pokemon fans when they have to wait another year for the next big game with no major releases in-between

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

I think the reason a lot of leftists struggle with disability justice is that they haven't moved past the concept that discrimination isn't bad because it's objectively "wrong." yes, sexists are objectively wrong when they try to claim women are dumber than men. yes, antisemites are objectively wrong that jewish people are inherently greedy and run the state. yes, racists are wrong when they try to claim that white people are the superior race. and so on.

but then with disabled people, there are a lot of objective truths to the discrimination we face. people with IDs/LDs do fall behind and struggle with certain concepts. physically disabled people are often weaker and less capable of performing demanding tasks than able bodied people. many of us with mental illnesses are more reckless and less responsible. a lot of us are dependent on others and do not contribute much "worth".

and guess what? disabled people still deserve a place in the world. disabled people still deserve the supports they need. because they are people, and that should be enough to support them and believe they deserve a place at the table.

if your only rebuttal against discrimination is its objective inaccuracies, you are meeting bigots where they are at. you are validating the very concept that if and when people are truly incapable of being equal to the majority, that means they are worth less. this causes some leftists to then try to deny the objective realities of disabled people and/or become ableist themselves.

your rallying behind marginalized groups should start and end with the fact that people are completely worthy of life and equity, because they are fellow human beings and that should, frankly, be enough.