#disabled people should be allowed to exist

[tou-dai]

There are people who keep doing fucked up things

Like rape, abuse, being a nazi etc

If you want them to live among people "like normal", I totally respect that

I think everyone should be safe, healthy, and free

I don't remember what quote it was tho. Something like, "your freedom ends where mine begins"?

I've had 8 concussions so you'll have to excuse me (one of them being from my abusive ex wife, a relationship in which i was .. damn. Only a victim of a crime/series of crimes)

Anyway

Point is i think people saying "separate these people from us in a humane a way as possible" is very reasonable

Considering some of these people do not want to be reformed

I think anyone who is compassionate and considerate of the consequences -- one way or another -- would much rather these people (no matter their demographic) be treated kindly

To be given what they need

But also: do not allow them to hurt others!!!

This is harm reduction!

I think the issue people have

Why they clutch their pearls

Is because we've all done fucked up things

Perhaps for extended periods, knowing, being in our emotions or whatever

Maybe just being ignorant and/or unwell

So we don't want to be exiled or put in jail!

And no one should have their safety, health, and freedom fucked with!!!

But now what?? It's 2025 and you have some of the worst human beings to have existed to be at the helm

Why?

Not only that: but there are people who support and relate to them, no matter what evil shit they do!!

Yall

We need to have a truly real conversation about our acceptance of intolerance and fucked up behavior in various forms

And where we draw the line

Because humanity is going to keep having this happen until we do

Edit bc I think this needs to be said, too:

There are people who want to abuse and people who want to be abused

Just like that old song (which i love ngl)

And i think everyone has a place or inherent worth

It's just our world is not designed to bring the best out of people or nurture them well

But people are also disingenuous about stuff -- they lie to themselves and others about things

Like how good or bad they are. Whether there is such a thing. Where the bar is. When it's appropriate to talk about it etc

Like many many people would say Elon/Trump need to just die

But there are many others who support them and fascism

Exactly what do you propose we do with such people?

With their votes?

How can we help them?

There are disabled minorities, like myself, who are seen as degenerates or useless

But we have many talents and ideas which are amazing

We are not afforded the opportunity to be who and what we are

Yet these assholes are at the helm

What to make of this?

We are fighting.

Who is fighting and how hard? Doesn't that depend on circumstances and constitution?

If you gave me 1 million dollars, I'd keep 100k and give the rest away.

How many could say that?

But people would judge those like me, who have destroyed themselves, body mind and soul

Just to survive

Or to be seen as human

..

I guess we'll have to see how this goes

venmo: @torchport

cashapp: $onepeaceman

"so youre saying we should just allow rapists and abusers to remain in society?" where else would they go ⁉️😭🙏 so confused can you show me this place outside of society

[sirfrogsworth]

The Price of "Efficiency"

There is a classic story about writing in space. It typically goes something like,

"NASA spent millions of dollars developing an ink pen so they could write in microgravity.

Russia used a pencil."

It became a parable about efficiency and bloated, wasteful budgets and overcomplication.

And without nuance, it feels like a good lesson. It's a simple teaching you can store in your brain and it can help you avoid complication when simplicity will work just as well.

But the parable is a lie.

There is a reason they spent millions of dollars making a space pen. Pencils in space are fucking dangerous. If one splinter or shard or speck gets loose in zero gravity that fucker can float directly into your eyeball.

There is a more modern version of this story. Congress will look over NASA or the military's budget and ask why they need $400 hammers or bolts that cost $50 apiece. They will hold up a bag of bolts and tell the taxpayer they are getting screwed.

But the NASA hammer has the pencil problem. If a shard of steel breaks off that hammer in zero gravity, it's a big problem. It could float into an important electrical system and cause a short. Maybe even a fire.

And those bolts might be for a $50 million fighter jet. They need to be custom manufactured to extreme tolerances. And you'll be glad you paid for those $50 bolts because replacing the fighter jet will end up being much more costly.

This is a concept Elon Musk should understand considering his work at SpaceX. People often deride SpaceX when a rocket blows up. They see it as a giant waste. But that is a normal part of rocket development. If you want to make a better rocket, you cannot avoid blowing a few into smithereens.

Everything needs context.

You have to consider nuance before making huge unilateral decisions about apparent wasteful spending. The folks who run these programs should be allowed to defend their existence. But outside his own interests, Elon can only seem to see space pens when Russian pencils will suffice. He is looking at these programs and making no effort to see the nuance.

They say USAID gives more money to "governance" than they give to "humanitarian aid."

HOW WASTEFUL!

Except a lot of humanitarian aid gets stolen without government infrastructure to secure and deliver said aid.

Waste happens. Fraud happens. I have no doubt.

But figuring out what is *actually* wasteful is a difficult job that takes a lot of research and understanding.

But also, sometimes the fraud and the waste are worth it. Large companies will actually factor theft and fraud into their budget because it would be more costly to try and prevent it. They consider it "the cost of doing business."

But it seems no fraud or waste is acceptable to a conservative when the goal is helping people. 100% efficiency is required. You can't give all kids school lunches because some of those kids have rich parents. You can't give people disability income because some will take advantage.

Apparently if you can help millions of people but you have to absorb 10% of the cost due to fraud... well that is just unacceptable.

It's better to help no one at all.

Oftentimes Republicans will create anti-fraud programs that end up costing more than the actual fraud happening. And all the anti-fraud programs end up doing is making deserving people jump through extra hoops.

Get a lawyer. See an approved doctor. Gather 20 years of evidence that you've been disabled. Whoops, they didn't request the proper records. Start over.

That was basically my disability case. I was already on disability. They had already determined I was disabled 20 years ago. But I had to prove that I was disabled all over again to get the better kind of disability. They couldn't take their own word that I was disabled.

Those hoops were created because catching fraud is more important than helping people.

Not terribly efficient.

And then there is the "not our problem" approach.

Taxpayer money is "wasted" helping people in other countries. "We have homeless veterans! Why are we helping African babies?"

Giving out free condoms is one of the easiest and cheapest ways to stop the spread of disease. Sickness cares very little for imaginary borders. Saving lives in another country also saves lives here. It's mutually beneficial. We probably even prevented some of those homeless vets from getting infected.

No thought is being put into this scorched earth shit show.

As always... get fucked, Elon.

[aetherial-boy]

Disabled people should be allowed to exist in public. Yes, I mean all disabled people.

That includes people with tic disorders.

That includes people who smell ‘bad’.

That includes people who can’t help being loud.

That includes people who move ‘strangely’.

That includes people with bulky mobility aids.

That includes people who drool.

That includes people who struggle with incontinence.

We all should get to exist, however that looks, and go out in public, use public transport, do activities outside our homes. And we should be allowed to do those things without being glared at or having ableist things said to us.

[lucabyte]

🐮

[swordsonnet]

when talking about topics like maturity and (self-)infantilisation, it's important to remember that there will always be disabled adults for whom the "normal" benchmarks of adulthood are not attainable or even applicable at all. if you want to be an ally to disabled people, you need to support all of us, not just the ones you find palatable - and that includes people who have "childish" interests, who get very emotional about seemingly trivial things, who aren't able to be independent in the way that adults are expected to be. that doesn't mean that we "need to grow up", or that we're reverting to a childlike state to avoid our responsibilities, or whatever op-ed writers think is wrong with gen z these days. it's just the way we are, and liking plushies or struggling with certain tasks doesn't in fact make us children! disabled adults are still adults, and still deserving of dignity, regardless of whether or not we can live up to the rigid societal norms of what it means to be an adult.

[hylasregilla]

I wish there was more space to discuss humans as a species of animal without racial politics and eugenics getting involved.

The speciation of humans; the splitting and merging of various populations; the ways environments, and cultures, and technology shaped us as a species; speculation on what humanity will look like in another thousand years; the fact that we crossbreed with other human species before they went extinct. It's all so fascinating, yet so sadly fraught.

[here-there-were-dragons]

i have to wonder what super hardcore militant vegans think should be done about obligate carnivore animals, because in all my painfully-rapidly-approaching-30-years i've literally never actually seen anyone give a clear consistent much less halfway feasible answer on that

[diapause]

I need to just stop looking at the comments of any ig post on physical disability whether it's positive or otherwise because it is 99% "As someone with Aspergers-" this isn't ABOUT YOU!

[strawberry-graveyard]

some of you are trying to recreate ugly laws and it’s genuinely so weird.

[cowsabungus]

Make pride accessible for everyone!!!!

I made a post about this last year and the year before, and thought if I did it this way it gives people and orgs something to work towards. Often people forget that disabled people aren't just wheelchair users, and even those who are, need more than just that ramp!

My first ever pride, not only as a wheelchair but my first ever EVER pride, I went in expecting to feel at home.

Obviously I wasn't, I'm disabled, so why should I?

Instead there was just a ridiculous amount of uneven flooring, a steep ramp to the disabled toilet, no sanitary towel bin in the disabled toilet (???) no allowances to be let out of the festival to fetch things from my car, no where quiet and organisers who seemed genuinely surprised to see a wheelchair user!

My next pride, three years later, I was a seller, and while they had sorted their toilet problem (still no sanitary towel bin???), the hill to get in wouod have been genuinely impossible for me to get to if I hadn't been driving to get my stall in anyway, even with someone pushing me, no quiet areas, plenty of kerbs for me to get stuck at and again, genuine surprise.

Why is it so surprising to consider disabled people might be at pride? Not only do queer disabled people exist, but parents and family of queer kids and people, vendors and even entertainers!

Making pride accessible is crucial!

ID available in Alt Text

[angelcatsiel]

ooof there goes my dad pissing me off with his opinions again

[boneless-mika]

Hating The New Topping Book is a lonely experience

[avvoltoio]

Ngl i was initially very put off by the post equating discussion of the two headed calf as ableist discourse. I agreed with op after i actually read the post, but it initially seemed like very flippant rhetoric to equate the possible euthanization of deformed livestock as ableism, especially when livestock is effectively a product.

I mean you can argue whether livestock SHOULD be considered a product or not, but that's opening a whole other can of worms.

Also I'm not disabled so who cares what I personally think on the matter, like genuinely and unironically. I have no horse in this race.

[235uranium]

"you wouldn't be disabled if the world was built to accommodate mobility differences!" and here I thought it was being in pain + having a chronic illness that can cause just about every symptom!

[hyperlexichypatia]

As I keep shouting into the void, pathologizers love shifting discussion about material conditions into discussion about emotional states.

I rant approximately once a week about how the brain maturity myth transmuted “Young adults are too poor to move out of their parents’ homes or have children of their own” into “Young adults are too emotionally and neurologically immature to move out of their parents’ homes or have children of their own.”

I’ve also talked about the misuse of “enabling” and “trauma” and “dopamine” .

And this is a pattern – people coin terms and concepts to describe material problems, and pathologization culture shifts them to be about problems in the brain or psyche of the person experiencing them. Now we’re talking about neurochemicals, frontal lobes, and self-esteem instead of talking about wages, wealth distribution, and civil rights. Now we can say that poor, oppressed, and exploited people are suffering from a neurological/emotional defect that makes them not know what’s best for themselves, so they don’t need or deserve rights or money.

Here are some terms that have been so horribly misused by mental health culture that we’ve almost entirely forgotten that they were originally materialist critiques.

Codependency What it originally referred to: A non-addicted person being overly “helpful” to an addicted partner or relative, often out of financial desperation. For example: Making sure your alcoholic husband gets to work in the morning (even though he’s an adult who should be responsible for himself) because if he loses his job, you’ll lose your home. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/codependency-addiction-recovery.html What it’s been distorted into: Being “clingy,” being “too emotionally needy,” wanting things like affection and quality time from a partner. A way of pathologizing people, especially young women, for wanting things like love and commitment in a romantic relationship.

Compulsory Heterosexuality What it originally referred to: In the 1980 in essay "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence," https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/493756 Adrienne Rich described compulsory heterosexuality as a set of social conditions that coerce women into heterosexual relationships and prioritize those relationships over relationships between women (both romantic and platonic). She also defines “lesbian” much more broadly than current discourse does, encompassing a wide variety of romantic and platonic relationships between women. While she does suggest that women who identify as heterosexual might be doing so out of unquestioned social norms, this is not the primary point she’s making. What it’s been distorted into: The patronizing, biphobic idea that lesbians somehow falsely believe themselves to be attracted to men. Part of the overall “Women don’t really know what they want or what’s good for them” theme of contemporary discourse.

Emotional Labor What it originally referred to: The implicit or explicit requirement that workers (especially women workers, especially workers in female-dominated “pink collar” jobs, especially tipped workers) perform emotional intimacy with customers, coworkers, and bosses above and beyond the actual job being done. Having to smile, be “friendly,” flirt, give the impression of genuine caring, politely accept harassment, etc. https://weld.la.psu.edu/what-is-emotional-labor/ What it’s been distorted into: Everything under the sun. Everything from housework (which we already had a term for), to tolerating the existence of disabled people, to just caring about friends the way friends do. The original intent of the concept was “It’s unreasonable to expect your waitress to care about your problems, because she’s not really your friend,” not “It’s unreasonable to expect your actual friends to care about your problems unless you pay them, because that’s emotional labor,” and certainly not “Disabled people shouldn’t be allowed to be visibly disabled in public, because witnessing a disabled person is emotional labor.” Anything that causes a person emotional distress, even if that emotional distress is rooted in the distress-haver’s bigotry (Many nominally progressive people who would rightfully reject the bigoted logic of “Seeing gay or interracial couples upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public” fully accept the bigoted logic of “Seeing disabled or poor people upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public”).

Battered Wife Syndrome What it originally referred to: The all-encompassing trauma and fear of escalating violence experienced by people suffering ongoing domestic abuse, sometimes resulting in the abuse victim using necessary violence in self-defense. Because domestic abuse often escalates, often to murder, this fear is entirely rational and justified. This is the reasonable, justified belief that someone who beats you, stalks you, and threatens to kill you may actually kill you.

What it’s been distorted into: Like so many of these other items, the idea that women (in this case, women who are victims of domestic violence) don’t know what’s best for themselves. I debated including this one, because “syndrome” was a wrongful framing from the beginning – a justified and rational fear of escalating violence in a situation in which escalating violence is occurring is not a “syndrome.” But the original meaning at least partially acknowledged the material conditions of escalating violence.

I’m not saying the original meanings of these terms are ones I necessarily agree with – as a cognitive liberty absolutist, I’m unsurprisingly not that enamored of either second-wave feminism or 1970s addiction discourse. And as much as I dislike what “emotional labor” has become, I accept that “Women are unfairly expected to care about other people’s feelings more than men are” is a true statement.

What I am saying is that all of these terms originally, at least partly, took material conditions into account in their usage. Subsequent usage has entirely stripped the materialist critique and fully replaced it with emotional pathologization, specifically of women. Acknowledgement that women have their choices constrained by poverty, violence, and oppression has been replaced with the idea that women don’t know what’s best for themselves and need to be coercively “helped” for their own good. Acknowledgement that working-class women experience a gender-and-class-specific form of economic exploitation has been rebranded as yet another variation of “Disabled people are burdensome for wanting to exist.”

Over and over, materialist critiques are reframed as emotional or cognitive defects of marginalized people. The next time you hear a superficially sympathetic (but actually pathologizing) argument for “Marginalized people make bad choices because…” consider stopping and asking: “Wait, who are we to assume that this person’s choices are ‘bad’? And if they are, is there something about their material conditions that constrains their options or makes the ‘bad’ choice the best available option?”

[chronicpaingirlie]

as much as i appreciate the intent of the “being disabled doesn’t make you a burden” type posts, i don’t really agree. a lot of times being disabled DOES make you a burden

& i think that maybe we should try to shift focus to the fact that even if you’re a huge burden on society and can contribute absolutely nothing, you’re still a human being who deserves to exist.

like. there’s nothing morally wrong with being a burden on other people. you aren’t a bad person for needing to rely on others. you’re allowed to be a burden & disabled people who are burdens on others, i love you