#they don't WANT to be considered disabled! because being disabled IS a moral failing to them. disability is abnormal

[pa-pa-plasma]

kind of frustrating that people took "fat does not equal unhealthy" to mean "fat is not unhealthy." sometimes being obese IS unhealthy & excess fat can cause a lot of problems. ignoring health issues isn't progressive. real "oranges kill people with depression" moment

[llatimeria]

I feel so resolved right now bc I've been getting a little frustrated with the Instagram reels I've been seeing that's mostly het women complaining about how their husbands don't share the mental load of housework - which is absolutely justified, ofc. everyone needs to partake in taking care of the home as close to equally as is reasonable.

the thing is this mostly takes the form of people making fun of how their husbands say things like "Yeah sure I'll share the load :) Just make me a list!:) just tell me what to do! :)" when that's kind of defeating the purpose -- if your partner's making lists of chores for you, you're still basically offloading a ton of mental effort onto them, which doesn't actually help the problem.

however I know from experience that I am that husband lol. and I'm sure a lot of these men are just kind of inconsiderate, but from my perspective as a disabled neurodivergent person, I reflexively try to offload things like Making Lists or Asking To Be Told What To Do onto my (overstressed, often panicking) partner because I'm scared that if I make decisions about what I need to do, I'll focus on something my partner didn't even have on their radar and waste all my energy "fixing" something which they didn't consider broken, leaving me with nothing to help solve the problems they actually care about.

I'm not trying to be a dick or deliberately being lazy, I just need to know what's bothering them the most so I can start there instead of starting on a random side quest that doesn't matter to either of us. considering how many of these people I've run into are in nd4nd relationships, I'm pretty sure I can't be the only "inconsiderate husband" out there who's having this feeling, and it's a little frustrating to see it being completely attributed to a moral failing and not, like, a possible symptom of their partner's own mental health issues. (like we definitely can't pretend like misogyny never plays a part in the Just Make Me A List type of behavior, but I know relatively certainly that is not where it's originating from in my own personal relationship, and I'm not that unique)

just when I was about to just make a kind of grumpy post about this problem and offer absolutely no solutions, I fuckin run into a reel where someone actually tells people how to bridge the gap between offloading mental effort and actually knowing what your partner wants you to do- literally just. offer a couple of observations to them instead of hoping they'll do everything for you. ie - instead of "just tell me what to do!!", say "I see the dishes have to be done and the trash has to be taken out, so I was gonna do the dishes then take out the trash, unless there was something else that needs my focus first". this tells your partner that you are taking on some of the mental burden, but still offers them the opportunity to point you in the right direction if you're WAY off.

it just makes so much fucking sense and I never would've thought of doing that on my own. genuinely an extremely useful video to just algorithmically be provided to me. it's actionable advice instead of just telling people "share the loaaaddd" without providing the scaffolding someone needs to do that when theyre unused to it (whether that be due to neurodivergency or growing up as a guy in a misogynistic society).

and its just like. God damn it. this is bullshit. I can't believe the stupid camera app is helping me in real ways. maybe the mental health gurus and internet therapists have a goddamn point sometimes. fucking hell

[late-draft]

Thoughts on Toph, Jet and Suki? For these last two the question is more about potential or what you'd like from them, more than about canon.

I'm curious about how you feel about some of my favourites. Don't feel pressured to reply and have a nice day. Love your art!

Hello! Thank you!! I'm gonna try to formulate my thoughts here, but I'll definitely have to expand on these in the future.

I think all of these three are strong, quality characters. Toph has most characterization and she and Katara share an aggressive temper, something I always thunderously cheer for; yet, they're vastly different despite that. The way I see it, Toph's situation is probably happier because the type of pain she carries is a feeling of betrayal and loneliness as she was restrained and oppressed by her parents and had no friends up until recently. She broke free. The writers said they wished there was more time to conclude Toph's struggle with her parents because it's an obvious pain point for her, for which she expressed several times a desire to fix. Fortunately for her, and unlike Katara whose pain comes additionally from traumatic loss which cannot be reversed, Toph's problems mostly can be solved relatively quickly by getting in her life what she was missing. She really is one of the best benders in the world and I was saying "Holy sh*t!" every time she fought because of the stuff she was able to pull off. She has a great dynamic with all characters from the gaang. Her animations of movement and bending are incredible - her character design, clothes and outer shape contribute to this (as shape and movement of clothes affect how animation feels a lot!)

(There's more movement in the lower part that emphasises groundedness?)

I think her discovery of metalbending has been undercut because she probably wasn't in actual danger, she was being brought to her parents who as it turns out, wanted her unharmed. If I had been writing, I would have had her be in a more dire situation which would have then made her discovery and subsequent victory all the more amazing.

She's a character who I think couldn't be stopped by any obstacle. That's literally how she's constructed as an archetype, compared to Katara who might face much more moral/emotional dilemmas or unsolvable situations rather than just challenging obstacles. But I should never say never; Toph did show a vulnerability in the form of (unfounded) guilt when Appa was taken. The narrative correctly found one of her character vulnerabilities because she's someone who theoretically "can't lose" so what happens when she lets her (only) friends down by failing? She didn't solve this guilt last time. It would most likely show up again later if similar situations happen. She's a very compassionate person who cares very deeply about people important to her. (I vaguely hearing about her dealing with guilt about her daughters in LoK, but I've only briefly watched LoK, I have no idea how that could have happened and I'm no longer sure how "canon" that show is considered to be, due to vastly different characterizations of many old characters…) Also her disability is never erased, neither does it make her helpless and her parents wrongfully use it as an excuse to restrain her. It's a part of her that isn't just a cosmetic character trait. She's perfectly capable on her own (if we ignore specific circumstances like being in the air), and I like how the show, instead of having her learn this, skips that part and advances onto Iroh helping her through anxiety and assuring her that it's also okay to accept help from friends in general, unrelated to her disability. Because she expanded this stress due to her parents' treatment onto thinking she should refuse all help in order to stay strong.

________

Suki is also one of my favourites. It's unfortunately clear that she doesn't have much characterization besides being a badass (which is spectacular, it's so cool that she's such a skilled fighter as a non-bender!) and a kind, no-bullshit person. These traits she has are very strongly repeated. Suki to me feels like someone who wouldn't suffer from social anxiety in the slightest. She could be the boldest in social situations alongside Aang, a confident extrovert. However, she feels like too stable of a character with no visible obstacles for her to overcome. I was disappointed by the Boiling Rock episode - yeah, a lot of things happened but it felt like nothing there affected the characters. Like in Toph's situation, what if it was tougher on them? The narrative did say Suki was Azula's favourite prisoner?! As much as I dislike torture, and this was a children's cartoon, imagine how strong Suki could have been to not break under worse conditions? But more importantly, I feel like she might have been really shaken from losing to Azula. How much would this harm her confidence in her skills, and how would she recover from this? Another one is how she might feel about Sokka's brief relationship with Yue, considering Suki had met him first. It would hurt her, and perhaps some feeling of guilt would arise because, how could she feel bad when Yue was no longer in the mortal realm? How would she deal with this? And maybe she could have an inverse parallel in Mai - if both of them had beef with benders, they might have different ways of overcoming this (Suki's being a healthy one). This thread would clearly be connected to the defeat to Azula, the prodigy bender. Because inversely, the narrative currently has Suki not feel anything from losing to Azula, not feel any envy towards benders in the series - that's kind of healthy for her, but boring to the audience. Plus, envy is one strong motivator to improve oneself. If not envy, then anxiety. Her and Kyoshi warriors' fight animations are also spectacular, I love the movement in the specific clothing they wear because you can't really see their legs. It's different from other characters and I heard their fighting style is inspired by aikido? The variety in combat styles is amazing! I think Suki could be additionally developed as one of the characters who puts the most focus on raw, physical prowess. So not just agility like Ty Lee, but strength and stamina too. Maybe Aang and Zuko don't have to be the only characters to push through sustaining scars from difficult wounds (if the show really doesn't want Katara to keep scars on her hands). Boiling Rock anyone? She and Sokka could match in this in the end when he hurts his leg in the final confrontation.

______

Jet is also a very strong character as he has a clearly defined role. He fulfils his purpose well. I really do have a feeling that he is sort of an inverse-Zuko: this doesn't mean I think he couldn't exist as a character on his own if Zuko didn't. But considering who ends up as part of the hero group, Jet additionally fills the role of showing something inverse of Zuko through the form he takes because he's a side-character (two birds with one stone). An Earth Kingdom character (Ally). Nonbender (masculine even without bending). No mercy for enemies. Successful and respected leader (of kids, but still) unlike Zuko who strained to get adults on the ship to respect him (loser). Jet's character design even has the more extreme version of Zuko's type of eyebrows!

This next part touches on shipping which can be skipped: ~ Most likely it's one of the integral parts he was created with. I'm not sure if I read this correctly, but I guess it's possible that Jet's character, which was made to fulfil the narrative purpose of showing a possible bad side to Allies who take things too far and kill innocents, in the visual and behavioural FORM he takes, was subsequently designed to also be someone Katara could project her forbidden interest in Zuko onto, but this time in a "justified" and "good" way, since Jet appears as a good guy freedom fighter. Then reality turns upside down at the end of the episode. (Narrative was planning to redeem Zuko since the beginning, so this was taken into consideration even while making S1. Katara gets a random FN crown in S1E13.) There is no hard evidence in the TEXT of the show for this, but to me it feels like this is what the narrative was doing. Thus there would be a high chance the narrative could force the two to clash in the future; and they do - I guess this is part of the reason why Jet physically fights Zuko. That fight grabs a bunch of threads: Zuko and Iroh are not safe/hidden even in Ba Sing Se, Jet was unable to overcome his visceral hatred for firebenders, Jet needed to be put in the brainwashing machine for some crime, the narrative needs a way to show that Zuko ISN'T integrating in the society outside of FN so it does it by having him refuse to join the freedom fighters gang, AND the two boys inevitably have to clash. I guess this might prove my suspicion, since the two had no interaction in S1 at all.

~

However, when the show implied that Jet had died, I was literally shocked. Mostly because it was Zuko who kept giving off the vibes of "dies in the end" type of character, so I was stunned to see this transferred onto Jet. (My bro was convinced Zuko was gonna die right up until the end when Katara healed him. Then we were both staring at the screen and I said "I thought you said he was gonna die?" anyway) I feel like Jet did manage to speedrun a sort of redemption arc though. The narrative COULD have pushed him more into "refuses to redeem himself" path if he had ended his run still fully obsessed with killing any firebender he comes across. That was one option. But the story decided to pivot into him managing to overcome brainwashing in order to save the heroes, this is what his arc ends on. I feel like both situations of him dying or surviving were fitting and satisfying. If Jet had survived, maybe I'd push him into an even more morally ambiguous spot, something pretty tangled in which he'd be an ally to the gaang but still antagonistic to Zuko in some way. Or some sort of indescribable negative tension existing there, with no easy or clear explanation Zuko could point to when confronted by someone from the gaang defending Jet. Then what if there was a plot by Ozai's supporters to secretly get the Earth Kingdom to attack the Fire Nation, which would then have Jet be tempted in aiding this. Secretly? Openly? Or not at all.

How cool his animations with hook swords are? They're that good that it feels like his weapons are extensions of his arms. It looks very believable and makes it seem like he's on an equal power level with benders. References used in animation definitely paid off. I'm sad his fight against Zuko didn't last longer or gotten a rematch! But I'm a simple person, I love watching energetic fights.

______

Now in terms of animation of ATLA in general, I was surprised to see that it's actually spectacular in many parts, even if it's not constantly as high as the one in LOK (whose S1 I watched first.) Before watching ATLA, I had the wrong impression that the story was childish, with continuous annoying tea jokes and the like, and thought "well the animation is worse than LOK, so why should I even bother." Then many times during my watch I had to gasp how skilled the animations were! Also, references for fights - amazing, I'll always support this. The fact that I'm now attempting to match ATLA's animation should be telling!

I'm not sure if I replied along the vectors of your interests, feel free to ask additional questions if you'd like.

[22degreehalo]

Like I know I'm just a whiny stupid antifeminist girl for caring this way about a Man but what did Aegon even do to deserve to be offered up for death by Allicent? Aside from that totally random scene that makes him a rapist despite there being absolutely nothing in his character before or after making that plausible.

Dude didn't even want to be king. He just wanted to drink and fuck around and have fun. He's just an obnoxious, lonely frat boy with daddy issues. It was Allicent and Otto who pushed him towards the throne, in order to protect and empower themselves. He sincerely tried to end the war quickly and to listen to the townsfolk, despite literally no-one giving him the proper training. And then in a failed attempt at heroics he got himself almost killed.

He's lost almost everything. He was forcibly married to his sister, which he seems actively disgusted by tbh; at the very least it's not a happy marriage. His adored son was murdered as a baby. His own brother tried to kill him, and did render him permanently disabled and in chronic pain, and also seemingly did kill his beloved dragon. He was never loved or even liked by any of his parents, who dismissed him with open disdain, and encouraged him to actively let them treat him as a puppet because if he ever tried to do anything he'd just fuck it up.

He never wanted any of this, but he did it because he was so desperate for love and approval. And he really tried to do it well, despite it all!!!

And for all that, Allicent thinks she has a right to just... offer him up as a human sacrifice?

If it was about killing Aegon to save the people of King's Landing from a drawn-out war: fine. It'd still feel out of character and implausible, but at least on a moral level it'd be forgiveable.

But... it's almost framed like this is for Allicent's sake. So she can be free. Because she was never treated well in the Red Keep. Or so she can feel good about having done the right thing. Like this is a relief.

Would she have done the same with Helaena?

No, don't answer that. Because it's sort of implied, unless I read in too deeply, that Allicent considers this 'trade' because Aegon already has 'nothing to live for', or whatever. Because he's disabled. So, who knows? If Helaena hadn't suddenly become this whole Useful Exposition Prophecy Girl, maybe she would've been an acceptable sacrifice, too.

[vergess]

So there's this popular post circulating. It goes like this:

bulldyke-rider (Sep 11 2022):

"Do I deserve this?" "Am I worthy of this?"

So irrelevant. Do you want it?

OP has me blocked for saying this before and no doubt again in the future, but that vaguely phrased hopeful language is a recruitment tactic. See, OP used to be just a TERF, but has since decided being a "feminist" was too limiting, choosing to be an open and avowed eugenicist instead.

The unspecified "thing" OP wanted to do in spite of not "deserving" it was: A Lesbian Wife handed to her, since All These Fake Bisexuals Are Not Capable Of Truly Loving Another Woman. Incel behaviour is cool and normal and totally not flirting with fascism when lesbians do it, right? 🙄

Other gems of hers include:

Trans women also pretend to be lesbians for sexual predation

JKR and radical feminists in general are "too smart" for tumblr unlike the gormless ~moids and bihets~ that use this platform

Telling people that their poverty is a moral failing and that people in poverty should be denied the right to have children, but it's okay because it's "totally not eugenics"

Do you have a disability that makes using a computer or phone difficult or impossible? Good news! The eugenics parade continues, with "learn how to do it anyway, or die."

It's fine though, because see, some of her best friends are disabled, and that makes them better than most people and such an inspiration! So, her eugenics are TOTALLY cool and fine!

Oh, and if you disagree, be sure not to cite any of your studies in a "college degree" she thinks is "useless". If you study in a field capitalists don't want to fund, that makes you pro-capital by magic. Why, the very term "anti-intellectualism" only exists to justify extraction of wealth. It's not like anti intellectualism FAMOUSLY PRE-DATES THE ENGLISH FUCKING LANGUAGE ITSELF or anything. Aristotle? Never heard of her.

This is a great fucking example of what it looks like when a bigoted swamp of a person develops excellent fluency in the language of progressive, egalitarian, leftist, etc spaces. But uses that language to exclusively push the most heinous, undisguised hatred for any person she doesn't consider fuckable.

She makes these vague, optimistic sounding posts knowing they will get circulated by the people she hates, to literally trick them into directing their followers, especially their younger and more malleable followers, to her. She does this specifically to prey on people for indoctrination to her too-extreme-for-TERFs beliefs.

It is a predatory propaganda technique and I am desperately requesting that if you MUST reblog that post, at least make it clear to your followers NOT to click through to the OP.

Better yet, steal the post and make your own version that isn't a thinly veiled demand for sexual slavery!

[balkanradfem]

Cardiology is... Very connected to other fields, so it's simply if you don't have more specific specialists in your area, chances are a cardiologist will know what to test for and who to go to, at least in a very generic direction. But it's especially connected to rheumatology. Although if you have a traumatologist that could work just as well, but in a town (tiny) where I live a clinic didn't have one and still doesn't, so I just went to a cardiologist to refer me to another city and she was pretty good.

The way you're describing it you definitely have chronic pain imo. I think there's a very harmful ableist narrative in our society that if the pain seems to have a cause it's not "actually" chronic as if chronic pain just appears out of nowhere which is not true, but just suck at figuring out the diagnosis. Chronic pain is any pain that lasts for a long period of time, case closed. Even if you broke your leg and it fully healed and it still hurts you'd still have a pain that is chronic, for example. Triggers for pain are very common too, it doesn't have to be present all the time, in fact in a lot of chronic pain patients it doesn't. Still counts especially if your pain prevents you from functioning fully (I'd even argue it qualifies as disability to some extent, but I'm not a medical professional)

Not inflammation (although you can't rule out anything without tests), but like I said, nobody expects, or nobody SHOULD expect patients to know what's going on all the time, and there's no moral failing in visiting a wrong doctor for your pain because all healthcare is trial and error until you figure out the final diagnosis. Showing up to a vaguely correct doctor (or a general physician, if you have one) with a generic "hey there's something wrong, can I get help with it?" isn't malicious at all and is better than self-diagnosing in almost every case.

That said doctors can be and usually are shitty about it, especially chronic pain + misogyny combo (I've been chronically ill + disabled since around 8 years old, and I've only met two to four doctors that actually taken me seriously and gently and didn't shame for being in the state I am), so I totally understand not wanting to go through all that hassle and potential medical trauma lmao.

On that note maybe try looking into over the counter muscle relaxant?

Oh I love what you wrote here!

I never considered this pain a chronic type, but what you're saying is absolutely true, it is just a descriptor for pain that lasts for a long time. I'm sorry if my perspective on it was wrong! It's completely true that chronic pain can be caused and triggered by physical issues.

You're right about doctors too, my doctor seems to just be annoyed with me repeatedly showing up and not getting any better even after being checked out by two physio-specialists. I'll talk about it to her the next time I'm in and see if I can get a referral!

I did get a muscle relaxant medicine, and it does take the pain away temporarily, I will take it if my pain gets irritated (like if I'm in a situation where I have to run a few steps, that will cause me intense pain if I don't take the relaxant afterwards). But it's not something one could safely take for a long time and I ended up having some bad side-effects from it, so I'm mostly avoiding it.

[cervinelich]

I am a firm believer that every single person should get therapy at least a few times a year. Yes, everyone.

There is this persistent idea that therapy costs hundreds of dollars. My partner's insurance covers therapy with their provider 100%. My insurance made therapy $50 a session and I only did sessions once a month because that's what I could afford. And let me be clear, both of us have shitty fucking insurance.

Virtual resources like Sondermind are far from perfect, but they are more affordable and better than nothing. Check your insurance portal for in-network therapists. It will take some emails and phone calls to find something.

Please, please, please.

Using the people around you as therapy is not sustainable. I'm not saying "don't talk to your friends about your problems/vent". I am saying in addition to having people around you that you can talk to, it is also good to have an experienced, knowledgeable, unrelated third party to help give you perspective.

Therapists are not going to "fix" you. They aren't there to "correct" you as a person. I understand where this idea comes from, given that "get therapy" is a common insult on this website that is supposed to represent some kind of moral failing on the person.

I've had 3 different therapists and while my chemistry with them was a mixed batch, the one consistent message you will get from them is "I want to help you feel capable of success".

They are not interested in pointing the finger at you for being a "bad person".

They will help you identify where some of your feelings are coming from and give you tools to recognizing your emotional triggers & how to avoid them. They have resources on getting diagnoses, job assistance, disability assistance, support groups and more.

Sometimes I see people on this website saying that telling someone to consider therapy is "ableist", even if said sincerely. I do not understand how we went from advocating for affordable mental health care to suggesting that therapists are universally out to "correct mental illness".

I didn't get therapy until I was in my 30s because I always thought that I didn't "need" it, like it's some "cure" for specific problems. Talking to a therapist finally made me admit to myself that I wanted to transition, that I was pushing myself too hard, that I was neglecting my ADHD and depression symptoms, that I needed to learn to say "no", that I was building up resentment toward the people in my life because I was ignoring my needs.

I waited until I was thinking about ending my life on the daily to get therapy and I wish I had done it all sooner.

It can be frustrating. You might not click with the first therapist you find, or even the first few.

I promise you, it is still worth it.

[riverofrainbows]

I am so sick of the moralisation of cleanliness.

It's everywhere. You can go in any comment section and see people judge and have no understanding whatsoever for even the smallest amount of clutter or dirt. It's people being judged on having any real or perceived lack of personal hygiene. And including situations where it is known that the person struggles with problems, including severe disability and cancer. Anything that doesn't look like a fucking minimalist furniture catalogue is unacceptable and gross. There can apparently be no problems that could possibly stop you from doing a proper hair wash routine or brushing your teeth or taking a shower.

I just saw a video of someone cleaning their elderly father's oven door which was pretty dirty. And even without actively condemning it, there were, without fail, comments going "But how could someone even let it get to that point?". I don't know, you fucking unempathetic asshole, i would say pretty easily? You need to be able to 1) kneel on the floor, bend over, or sit on a low stool to reach that area 2) be able to scrub something 3) have the mental energy and know how to do the task and 4) consider it enough of a priority in the limited time and energy of your life to do it. These faux concerned comments showing utter incapability to try to understand a life different to theirs make me so mad.

"But how could someone cope with living in such disgusting conditions?" well they probably wouldn't choose it if they could, but again, they wouldn't not keep up with cleaning if cleaning were easy to do. How can people not understand that.

And this includes judging on greasy hair, stains, bad teeth (did you know that the number one factor of having healthy teeth is genetics?), smelling (especially teenagers, hormones are a bitch), dirty fingernails, not having clear skin or body hair.

I used to sweat and smell easily as a teenager, and not for lack of hygiene. I showered or washed twice every day, wore a fresh clean shirt every day, wore double deodorants every day, washed my jackets too, and i STILL smelled occasionally and was judged for it. Someone once said i should shower more. Because they assumed the reason must be that I don't even try to keep clean.

Could i have done more? Probably. I could have taken an extra shirt to school every day and changed (I didn't even own enough clothes for that, but maybe i could have bought extra cheap ones at the charity shop (where we shopped anyway) that I didn't like and weren't in fashion whatsoever, which would have made me unhappy about my expression and bullied even more for my clothes style, not to mention be judged for wearing a different outfit), washed my winter jackets every few weeks as a precaution despite what it says on the label so they break within a year or two and i have to buy new ones (which i couldn't afford) or taken them to the dry cleaner for expensive money we didn't have, i could have gotten surgery to remove my sweat glands (has side effects, and i want to emphasize that i was like 13 when it started), i could have faked illness to go home as soon as i noticed my clothes start to smell (missing many school days). Or, you know, other people could have raised their kids to have even a cell of kindness instead of cruelty and ableism in their body.

And the moralisation of cleanliness goes for the jokes about how "white people don't shower properly" or people who smell of something you aren't familiar with (like coconut oil) too. Since when is "scrubbing your entire body with soap twice per shower every day" something someone could consider the 'bare minimum'? Why is people treating their hair or scalp with oil 'gross'? "Oh i would feel so gross if i didn't shower every day" well good for you, and also fuck you, because your personal habits and preferences don't constitute moral standards. And i won't complain over someone having theses standards for themselves, that's fine, but i will not accept that person judging others cleanliness as a moral factor. (Note the use of the word "gross" in the earlier example, which is a real example i see pretty often)

"But where is the line waah waah, so you would be fine with someone living with cockroaches?" The line is at health. Infestations and mold constitute health risks. Having so much clutter you can't even check if there's infestations or mold does too. Never cleaning your skin or scalp will give it conditions and might lead to sores that can give you sepsis. Lotion if you have dry skin that gets uncomfortable otherwise, washing your hair so it doesn't itch. Smells that you don't try to reign in and cause harm and stress to the people around you. Neglecting your teeth does affect them and can cause further health risks, so trying your best and brushing and flossing them.

And cleanliness feels nice! So most people would probably have a pretty high standard of cleanliness, IF THEY COULD.

If you're so fucking concerned with someone elses home being cluttered and dirty, fucking go offer doing a spring clean for them without judging them even once. Or shut the fuck up.

My room is always cluttered and often dirty. Would i prefer it to be squeaky clean and completely put away? Yes. Are some of the corners a little gross? Yes. Is that something bad? No! Do i have the ability to keep it clean and just choose not to because i prefer it that way and am a gross immoral person of lower worth? No but that's what apparently a lot of people think, which is horrible and they should feel bad about themselves. Would i keep it clean and tidy if i could? Yes. Can i? No that's the whole point. Is uncleanliness unclean? Yes. Is that bad and immoral? No!

So many people have not even the smallest idea of what disability, lack of time and energy, or just mishaps of circumstances can look like. They cannot imagine a world where the "normal" person they meet every day is not exactly like them. They cannot conceptualise disability (with it's many forms). They will also refuse to categorise things they do encounter in their life as disability, and thus refuse to open their horizon. This very quickly becomes "Well if they can't even do [insert what they deem as normal] them maybe they shouldn't have autonomy or be allowed to go outside." (just look at comment sections of posts and see how quickly this comment pops up)

And to finish on the topic we started, since this post is getting long, the moralisation and following judgement stops people from opening up about when they fail to meet these standards of cleanliness other people display, and creates a fake picture that pressures everyone else to try and hold it up too. And it's fine to have as high of a standard as you want for yourself, but everyone needs to understand that as long as health requirements are kept, finding something gross doesn't mean it's immoral. And that a lot of people have a higher standard of cleanliness than they can actually achieve and practice, and that that's fine.

If you feel the need to comment on someone's living environment or personal hygiene, if you aren't willing to personally help them clean and remedy the situation with kindness, don't speak at all. And if you want to go a step further than not judging others, how about you step up when you see your friends and family judge someone over a perceived moral standard of cleanliness.

[coulsonlives]

It's 2023 y'all, we're here and queer and mad at assholes, but here are four ableist insults you (yes, you) should consider not saying the next time someone chaps your nips:

Don't insult people by saying 'get a job'. Not being able to work, or not having a job, isn't a moral failing, a measurement of someone's maturity, or a measurement of their effort, it's also super stinky because of the internalized toxic capitalism because it implies a person's value only goes up substantially if they get a job

Don't tell someone you hate that they 'probably live in their parent's basement', because it's ableist and culturally ignorant. It's the most western shit ever y'all. Some people need support bc of disabilities and other things, some people just like living with their parents. Plus y'know, at least here in Canada, shit's fucked for housing so a lot of people do live with their parents, big deal really

Don't insult people by calling them ugly or gross or hideous, because most of the time there's nothing they can do to change it. How is a person supposed to easily change their nose or weight or acne? It's a low blow. Call out their actions instead

Don't call people 'mouthbreathers'. There is a big percentage of the population with chronic congestion, allergies, or structural things that make breathing through their nose impossible, people with sleep apnea or other obstructive sleep shit are often mouth breathers and you wouldn't link that to a pejorative insult, right? But the origin of 'mouthbreather' was to describe a stupid, dumb person who stares vacantly at nothing with a slack jaw. So by using this word you're calling someone stupid and weaponizing that as a pejorative, it's kinda like the r-slur but more covert

If people want to scream at me because 'it's not that deep', that's cool, but I'm not listening. Peace out

[cybrheartheart]

I was going to college for too many years, because I was only diagnosed at the time with a generalized learning disability. The place didn't have a qualified professional so that was all they could until I learned about Vocational Rehabilitation state departments. Voc Rehabs get veterans and people with disabilities back into the job market. That means paying for diagnoses, schooling, mental wellness, classes that help you to focus on what you can actually do in the here and now.

While I was working and taking classes at the same time, while being partially supported with accommodations due to my disabilities. I was working a lot to pay for my survival. A vast majority of these jobs were in food service. A lot of the places I worked also shutdown because of various business practices that ended up culminating years after my employment, and so I ended up with a lot of jobs on my resume/cv which could never be followed up with. So a lot of places really didn't have the best treatment of their employees. But a lot of them employed students, so the one thing they always offered was free or discounted food. I found the best places were sandwich shops because I could get the largest size to live off as my meal for the day.

Had a job where the owner was a good person. Treated his employees like they were golden, ensured we were given the best of the best treatment considering what the job entailed. One of the managers there decided he would foment chaos. One of my fellow coworkers on shift was an unofficial manager. He did the work of a manager but wasn't paid, he was competent and masterful in his work, but he also had no problems having fun and keeping morale up, because it was grueling work. Well, he started noticing something was up with the manager, who was cutting down the food weights because we weighed the food before we put them on the sandwiches so customers could expect consistency. Cutting down our free food, almost eliminating them, telling us we needed to clean even more than usual or we'd fail our health inspection, and generally gaslighting us into general bad morale. This coworker I mentioned was getting itchy about what was going on, started putting his nose in certain things and found out a lot of things that were sketchy and decided to quit. I felt that I didn't want to work for this horrible manager especially since this coworker was basically a safeguard/barrier against most of the horrid actions of the manager. I don't hate people, it takes a lot for me to get angry or have strong feelings of a negative kind to anyone, but I hated closing, I hated that manager, I hated that he would make me do a lot of work I was actually unable to physically do without hurting myself. My spine doesn't bend, it's been fused with hardware. Making me bend down and reach around in cabinets are torture. Literal torture and he would make me do it every night. I have never understood people who would make others do something that would hurt them. So, I started to put out feelers to the other businesses nearby, especially another business that was owned unbeknownst to me by a friend of the owner. When I came in for my interview, being an AuDHD I tend to trust everyone and tell everyone whatever is on mind without guile or censor. I told who I found out later was the owner of the new business, exactly why I was changing jobs. Apparently he contacted the owner of our shop, who in turn called me and I thought I was in trouble. But instead, he told me that I still had my job, but to keep it I'd have to tell him Everything. I told him about the bad manager, and my coworker who really should be the manager but doesn't want to take on the mantel just wanted to work. Turns out the manager had been steal whole cuts of meat (you go to the deli dept at your grocery store and see the cuts of meat they slice off of, yeah, those) and selling them. That's why he was cutting the weights. The owner changed a lot of stuff after that. He ensured we knew that we were getting free food and how much. He also laminated everything so it could not be changed by anyone but him. He also brought out the health inspections results, prior and current. Apparently, the owner was on handshake terms with the health inspector. He'd been ensuring we were up to code for a very long time and ensured that what needed to up updated was always updated. He just never told us. We had been getting A+ results on our health inspections way, way before the bad manager took over and we still had A+ inspections.

He usually didn't come into the stores before especially not that often only for health inspections but once he fired that horrible manager, he took over the guys shifts for a while and ensured that people were being treated fairly. I thrived under his supervision because he would pop in and help when we'd have a crush during lunch rush and he'd hop in where people were not able to keep up. He was one of those people who led from the front.

By the time, I graduated from University, I was actually really grudgingly sad about leaving because he treated us humanely unlike a lot of crappy jobs I'd worked for, I knew I was needed, and it was worth it to work for them by then. I was talking to people just before I left that I felt like I really didn't want to leave. But I was told I deserve that career job because I busted my butt for that degree and I was actually going to be able to apply it to the real world, and I had an excellent opportunity to get a gov't job. Which wasn't something a lot of graduated would be able to do. Then I was told to walk my butt out that door and don't come back unless I was a customer.

So this got long, and I tend to ramble at times, a stream of consciousness I guess you could say. Basically, you really don't know what people are going through when they work for you, especially in food service. But one thing I know is, the sucky pay doesn't make up for the lack of being able to survive. A person shouldn't have to rely on a sub sandwich to keep them alive while College or Uni students.

Another thing I want to mention, a vast swathe of students don't know how to cook, so living on that sandwich is all they have. The world shouldn't be like that but it is and giving employees a free f*cking sandwich really the different between starving and having a meal, and is a literal lifesaver, especially when you have no time to make food or learn to make food without an internet. Please ensure your workers are feed or a lot of the time they won't have the energy to work. I tended to either eat that thing right away or I'd save half of it for dinner. Just depended when my shift was, whether morning, afternoon, or closing.

All food service workers should 100% be entitled to free ass meals on the job. Not discounted, not half off. Free.

[creepycrawliesinyourwalls]

rambling; online diary

i truely believe i can do heroin and not be addicted. i've been on dilaudid before, ive gotten high off my ass on weed, i took some vyvanse to see how itd go, and ultimately it was boring. being high is kinda boring. i complain about not having my cart, sure. but being so fr rn i do it for show. no one would ever believe me in a million years, but it is genuinely for show.

i have a hard time defining myself as a person, given the disorders i have. anything and everything that i could add to myself to humanize myself is a positive, never a negative. humanity is by definition flawed and faulty, if i have a flaw im more easily humanized.

im also incapable of being perfect, though if i wasn't abused to the point of my brain never fully forming a cohesive personality, i'm sure id be a prodigy. if my brain genetically disabled, i'd be top of my class, 4.0 gpa with honors.

with dissociative identity disorder, autism, adhd, bipolar 1, ptsd, clinical depression, arfid, and probably some sort of personality disorder, its hard to care about anything at all. these are only the mental and neurological disorders and defects, too.

inherently i was given the worst hand i could have gotten in birth. my potential is wasted, trapped inside this failure of a body. i could have been so much more. my face is somewhat conventionally attractive, so theres a win.

im confident that without my memory issues, joint pain, and depression i could be a full blown doctor. i have to settle for marketing, because my gpa currently is too low to get into engineering. i wanted to do mathematics for awhile to get into finance or something. i wanted to do geology bc my special interest is rocks, but i don't want to work for an oil company.

if i am not constantly improving with my life in any aspects, if i am stagnant for a stretch of time, i consider it a failure.

i do not have a personality, at least nothing coherent and consistent. some people say im loud, some say im shy. sweet, mean, smart, dumb, its all contradictory traits.

i consider myself better then most of the people i choose to be friends with. a good lot of them (danny, chloe, viktor) will probably never go to college. kaden might go, but im sure she'd just party the whole time. alix is maybe the only one who i'd even consider on my level, since he's aiming for law and finds debates enjoyable. he has the drive and determination to do well in life, and is at the very least takes steps to get where he wanted to get.

chloe wanted to get into medicine and be a doctor. she is chronically disabled and was failing half of he classes. from disabled to disabled person, there is no way in hell you are making it that far. id be surprised if she made it past 25, honestly. she viewed mental hospitals as a vacation, even excluding the morals on that view, its incorrect. she believed she wasn't addicted to her medication, and that it actually helped her. she never even tried.

i am beginning to become fond of alix, though. i hope my headmates realize how much better his is compared to others. taylor and vee are already fond of him, which is a good sign.

we seem to be improving our depression symptoms and dissociative amnesia, and we joined a cbt program to further along process after being voluntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility. (yes, we did ask to go. we were going to kill ourselves as soon as we were alone, we needed immediate help.) i want to work on breaking down our gatekeepers resolve, and get us to a place where we can work on final fusion. i would also like to address our npd traits, but our therapist wouldnt believe us, so ill have to work on that myself.

we haven't been practicing our religion as much as we used too, its kind of sad. we send a prayer up to apollo occasionally, and he usually answers. but otherwise we havent done any spell work. its sucks to admit it, and god to i want to delete this paragraph but i need to work on vulnerability to create and foster friendships that are mutually beneficial.

ive never seen the point of online friends, i think the concept is pointless. i've tried doing it, and everytime we ended up ghosting them. the effort did not match the spoils. if im going to have friends, i need them to invest in me before i invest in them. it can be materially, emotionally, or physically. as long as i gain benefits, you will too.

[mopeing]

One thing that stresses me out is a culture shift with regards to technology.

A decade or two ago, tech enthusiasts were generally distrustful of authority. Not just governments, but banks and megacorporations. They didn't believe in tech at all costs which is what the stereotype of "tech bros" these days is.

What motivated this post is (as usual) a series of reddit posts. One of them was a post about how National Rail want to get rid of ticket offices since we have ticket machines these days. Pretty much all of the comments were saying how this was a good thing, and implying that the only people who could possibly have an issue with this was old people who are too lazy to learn new technology. It wasn't until there were other articles about disabled people having difficulty at unmanned stations or instances of ticket machines not working that sentiment started to be that maybe having human beings at stations might be a good thing.

Then there was another post today about how society is increasingly going cashless. Again, the comments were saying how this is a good thing. The only people who would oppose this are old people (being old seems to be considered a moral failing by many redditors) and drug dealers so we shouldn't care. Never mind that cash is useful if technology ever breaks, or if you have a good reason to hide money, like someone with an abusive partner who monitors their bank statements.

This comes after weeks of news stories about Nigel Farage getting one of his bank accounts closed for political reasons. The gist of the comments on reddit was that it's good that this happened because we personally don't like him. (In fact, originally it was denial that it was politically motivated at all, which seemed to mysteriously stop when it came to light that it definitely was)

I really, really can't stress how much it terrifies me that people these days are perfectly fine with tech overreach just because it only negatively impacts people they don't like or just don't care about.

I consider myself to be a tech enthusiast. But I also distrust authority. I don't want a cashless society. I don't want unmanned train stations. I refuse to download things like banking apps because I don't think that having a smartphone should be mandatory for participation in society. I refuse to own any "smart" technokogy beyond a phone. I hate hate HATE when the only way to get support from a company is via a chatbot. It's not because I'm old, it's because I'm philosophically opposed to people in positions of power removing ways for ordinary people to empower themselves. And I want to avoid single-points-of-failiure. Humans can be reasoned with, machines cannot.

I like technology. It's useful and improves our lives. But it can also be used by big business to cut costs at the expense of service. It can be used to fleece people out of as much money as possible (e.g. websites using cookies to raise prices if it detects you left and came back to the same product later. Video games being full of microtransactions. Printers bricking themselves if they detect you're using third party ink. The entire SaaS business model)

It isn't just "tech bros" who want technology at all costs. It seems like society as a whole is perfectly willing to accept it. And I don't like that.

[relaxxattack]

hey, so i still havent read knifetrick yet, but i saw the post you reblogged about it being about capitalism's treatment of disabled people. im aware that this is just one interpretation of your work, but did you consciously make decisions about what messages to send within your story? did you purposefully include imagery or motifs or references or anything else to create a particular theme or idea?

im wondering because im making my own story, and im curious about what others put into theirs. i have a few key ideas i want to send with it, so i'm trying to tie all my characters and their arcs and the symbols and everything in my story to it. my brand of autism tends towards the "everything MUST have a logic to it!" and this is an obvious influence on it, but i still also think it's worth putting a lot of thought into it because theyre ideas i really care about. i want curious readers to be able to look into my story and see how it all ties together, and i want to impart messages of compassion onto my general audience as well. i think that all art has messages within it, whether personal or otherwise, and by being aware of what those are you can create a stronger and more cohesive story. at least thematically. if that is what someone wants to do, of course.

i know knifetrick is a story you started for fun. there is absolutely value in that (in your own joy) and i dont think art without intentional purposes or messages is inferior in any way. but did you ever get an idea for an overarching message in your mind, and implement it? its cool if you didnt, or if you did but dont want to say what it is too btw lol. im kinda just looking for the experience & thoughts another author had with their own thing. (i am very nervous sending this ask. i hope i dont sound like im jumping the gun.)

do not feel bad for asking this question, i'm always down to talk about my written works, even if it takes me a bit to collect my thoughts and figure out a response. yes, the truth is i went into knifetrick from the start with a lesson/moral i wanted to explore and teach. a fun fact about me is that i have several younger siblings, who are often being taught things i personally don't agree with. having conversations with them about what is really "right" or "moral" is awkward and not really doable. but stories and characters have always been a good and safe way for us to have this discussion-- why did this character do that thing, what makes this bad guy bad, and so on. this is why with writing i don't just like to tell a story, but i also like to teach a lesson. as patronizing as that sounds, i kind of just think it's pleasing when stories have a good moral behind them. although they don't need to for me to enjoy them. but back to the actual topic, yes. i did intentionally choose to explore the idea of capitalism's failure of certain groups of people in my story. that is what the main plot is actually wrapped around-- there's the obvious struggle with the main character, ran. he is physically and mentally disabled, he is treated differently than his peers. in a way he is fed from a young age the idea that the only way he can be considered equal to everyone else is to have a use to other people; to be the hardest working member of the order. his society encourages this worldview so that they can take advantage of him, but they don't actually care about him at all. they would discard him if he stopped being useful to them. the second example of this is the other main character, jackie. jackie's society also failed to take care of him-- he was orphaned, and then immediately lacked a support system of any kind, personal or governmental. he turned to a life of crime to make ends meet and repress his emotions, but all that did was eventually make his severe depression worse and manifest itself in a lot of anger issues and lashing out. by the time ran meets jackie, he's attempting to turn over a new leaf and take this opportunity he's been given to make an honest living; jackie cares a great deal about the people around him. the missing children are failed by society in the fact that they go missing in the first place, and nobody has bothered to try and find them (although the blame for that rests mainly on watson's shoulders, seeing as he tricked the king into thinking that was being solved). scoots and clem are failed by society as well- scoots is denied the job she actually wants to have due to her disability, and they are very poor. obviously this is made worse when clem goes missing, and since no one else is doing anything, scoots stops working to look for her sister. possibly the most obvious examples i can think of are maia snail and laggius maximus. maia's children are both autistic, with one of the two showing much more severe symptoms than the other. she's dealt with this in the way she best can as a mother, which is give them things they can comfortably work on to get their energy out and be helpful without having to do anything they don't like. society fails them as well, in that laggius is killed in the pit. but the more important part of their story is something snail tells ran: "i would have loved my brother even if he was never useful a day in his life, because he deserves it". essentially all throughout knifetrick, especially through ran, we are shown this idea of usefulness as equivalent to worth; i.e. how capitalism teaches us to view ourselves. we are shown how faulty of a system that is through the various characters. eventually ran realizes that he does not actually have to do anything useful to be worthy of existence, comfort, or love, and that is the sort of “end moral” of the narrative. ran ditches the council, showing that he knows his own worth and refuses to be tied to people who only ever hurt him, and then jackie helps the king start to reform subbin’s systems so that less people will fall through the cracks as he did.

so yes, that is essentially how i explored the idea of capitalism failing disabled people through knifetrick. there’s likely more stuff that i forgot but that’s what i remember off my head right now. anything anyone else sees in knifetrick about this topic is probably fair as well, death of the author and all that. this is what i intended while writing but other people might have seen more things in other characters that i didn’t think of too hard.

i hope that helps.

(bonus: firefox completely froze while i was at the end of this ask and made me fear for my fucking life. it took so much waiting and minimizing the program before i could safely save this to my drafts and then close firefox. terrifying.)

[horizonsstandstill]

If that glorious revolution happened, maybe less people will need insulin. Because they were forced into cage-like working conditions and unhealthy diets that were pushed upon them and because they were pushed into poverty and because the healthcare system ran them dry and because they were heavily discriminated against by the doctors.

I'm not sorry but anyone who is supporting the brutal status quo are the most extreme of the extremists themselves. The world you're enjoying is built and being rebuilt upon the misery of billions of people. And they go out of their ways to ignore that suffering, and hiding behind hypothetical persons that will be inconvenienced by that. I'll burst their balloon but people are dying because they can't find insulin. Some die because they are rationing it.

What's their solutions for these people? May I hear your solutions other than bootlicking and deluding yourselves to believe you're actually moral human beings? Wake up. The healthcare system you defend is infamous for killing poor, old, disabled and also for the rampant racism that kills so many Black people through inhumane treatment. The revolutionary people I know from both authoritarian communists and anarchists of any kind are actually doing things for disability rights while these arrogant hypocrites find it okay if the eugenics imposed upon people by the order they love to worship the boots of.

Can't I say the same thing about your status quo? If your solution to keep the society stable entails the mass deprivation of people, how dare you argue it's a good solution? If you don't have any tangible solution, how dare you mock the oppressed people for wanting change? If your status quo is actually preventing feasible solutions, how dare you blame revolutionaries for desiring violence? After all, the status quo is built upon violence. By Weber's definition, a state is barely anything other than a monopoly on violence. If you're that against the violence, why aren't you guys are going against the perpetrators of the greatest violence on earth, starting by your own country? But I doubt any of the bootlickers are smart enough to realise the hypocrisy in it.

Let's get into an other aspect of hypocrisy. What about the misery caused by the counterexamples? Do they consider the fall of soviets a bad thing because it caused grave suffering for the millions of people? Do they consider Palestinian diabetes patients in Gaza not being allowed to have insulin having the same weight about their hypothetical scenario of a diabetic patient not having insulin because of a revolution?

Remember everyone, these colonialism apologists who think they know better than those people they are actively participating in the oppression of would have sided with the king in the French Revolution. They would have sided with the French in the Haitian Revolution. They would have sided with the slaveowners in the American civil war. They just don't want to be inconvenienced by both a loss of their privileges because of any substantial change, and the moral burden of upholding the status quo and taking responsibility for the perpetrated violence upon the undeserving.

I'm not even going to argue about the unfounded critique of not having actual solutions. That's their own projection because they don't want any solutions. Indigenous peoples, Black people, anarchists and communists have various solutions and they didn't fail by themselves. They were thwarted by the use of violence by the imperialist core. If they are afraid that the world is going to amputate the cancerous clump that they are in, we are heading towards there and they have nobody to blame but themselves for going against the peaceful efforts for change until it became unbearable for everyone other than them and the wearers of the boots they love to worship.

A little advice from someone studying extremist groups: if you’re in a social media environment where the daily ubiquitous message is that you have no hope of any kind of future and you can’t possibly achieve anything without a violent overthrow of society, you’re being radicalized, and not in the good way.

[jecook]

There's been this ongoing dialogue with BNHA fans about how certain fanon tropes are seemingly amoral, especially the idea of changing, erasing, healing to a level where they become invisible, or otherwise removing scars and/or trauma is a moral failing of those engaging with certain headcanons, art, fics, etc.

This conversation arises especially with the villain characters, as many AUs are about if their trauma never happened. Other stories and theories revolve around the main LOV getting rewound to be kids again so they can grow up without going through the horrific childhoods they have had. More have Shigaraki or Dabi have their scars get completely healed with no trace. Some art and fics have Dabi's burn scars replaced with tattoos. These things are all part of a larger narrative of fans of these character wanting the character to have a better, less painful alternative to the horror that they have been through, wanting the characters to not have to live in pain daily. Of course, much of BNHA is about scars and trauma. Getting rid of these things does indeed erase a large part of what Horikoshi addresses in the narrative, and many people feel that headcanons and fanon of this type also do a disservice to real people with scarring and real people who have gone through abuse and trauma. Their experiences can't be magically erased, although a lot of media often makes it seem like disabilities, scars, and trauma in fantasy and scifi deserves to be healed, given a completely new start, even though that isn't possible for those people in actuality.

So is it wrong to have these headcanons/fanon? In short, no. Seriously, no. I approach this with the exact same logic as a lot of the same rhetoric as being able to write dark content--this fan content will not change the direction that the canon narrative is going in, it is just something that these people want to explore for their owns reasons. It is nice to imagine characters if they had gotten to live better lives and it makes sense to wish for this idealistic life, and that's okay. It's aesthetically cool to imagine Dabi with intricate tattoo work instead of tattoos. Yes, it is good to consider the larger concepts behind how these things can have serious implications in published work, but I firmly believe that most fanfiction inhabits less of a literary zone and more of a fan wish fulfillment zone, which is awesome! Good, that's what many people want in their fiction oftentimes!

If someone's enjoyment of BNHA hinges on how scars, trauma, and disabilities are represented honestly, then great! Ignore the rest of the stuff by scrolling past, filtering it out, not clicking on that twitter thread, unfollowing, or blocking.

Personally, I understand fan content disregarding what you like best about a work. There's tropes popular in BNHA fanon that I don't engage with because it leaves out what I like best. That isn't a moral failing on the part of those creators, it's just a difference in what time of fan content you enjoy.

Tl;dr: please stop moralizing so much fanon content. If you believe that people should be free to enjoy and explore what appeals to them, sometimes that means just letting people enjoy a wholesome, idealistic version of the story. And that's okay.

[waheelawhisperer]

One kinda worrying trend I've noticed in the FNDM (but thankfully not in the show) is the idea that hiding one's scars and/or disabilities is some kind of moral failing.

Like yes, throw shade at Adam, but please bear in mind that one of his cruelest actions involved showing off his brand rather than hiding it. So like, hiding the brand that marks him as someone else's property WASN'T intended to be a heinously evil or cowardly action by the writers, so I don't get why the FNDM likes to play "Adam covered his brand" like it's some kinda "gotcha" when that's literally the only valid thing Adam ever did.

(Unrelated, but I never want to defend one of Adam's life choices ever again.)

It's especially baffling when queer fans throw around that rhetoric, given that, y'know, disabled and queer people closet themselves for similar reasons.

(Also, Blake's never willingly showed off the scar Adam gave her, but that is curiously always overlooked by fans who treat that kind of behavior as cowardly or deceptive.)

It's also worth noting that Ironwood never bothers to hide his final prosthetic, which he only receives AFTER his Face Heel Turn.

So like, I have no idea where this interpretation came from when NOTHING in canon supports it! Best theory I have is that someone tried to disqualify Adam and Ironwood from "counting" as disabled for the express purpose of arguing with RWDEs without considering how HORRIBLE it would sound to disabled fans.

I've seen a couple posts with this interpretation and don't particularly like it. Hiding or being ashamed of a disability does not make you inherently evil and there are plenty of valid reasons to do so (not wanting to be harassed, for one).

Leaving aside any moral implications, this idea isn't even particularly accurate to the show. Displaying/concealing scars and disabilities is kind of a mixed bag among protagonists and antagonists alike. Yang wears her prosthetic openly and so does Maria, but Blake's Mistral and Atlas outfits both cover her scar. Weiss displays her scar without a hint of shame or discomfort. Nora doesn't conceal her scars, but she also acquired them in the middle of a war zone, so I think it's reasonable to assume she has other priorities at the moment. Ironwood displays his final prosthetic openly, and his concealment of the others has little to do with his status as a hero or a villain and everything to do with the fact that he's wearing fucking clothes like someone who expects to participate in polite society. Man wears a military dress uniform. He'd be covered up regardless of the extent of his prosthetics. Adam covers his brand, but he's got pragmatic reasons for that: it makes him extremely recognizable, unless there are large numbers of people walking around with "SDC" emblazoned on their faces. Tyrian doesn't give a shit about displaying his prosthetic, Cinder conceals her Grimm arm at least partially because anyone who sees it will immediately try to kill it with fire, and Hazel is not overly concerned one way or another with people seeing the scars he's left on his body from jamming Dust straight into his veins, given the way he starts stripping like a Magic Mike extra any time he's in a fight.

On balance, I think the heroes conceal their scars/disabilities less frequently then the villains, but the villains are kinda split regardless and the ones that do hide their disabilities have practical reasons for doing so. I can see where the theory comes from based on that, but I personally think it's wrong.