I think it’s kind of ablist to assume a disabled person has nothing of value to offer, like if they can’t move a couch then they are excluded. “Moving a couch” could be anything, it could be filing taxes or cooking a meal. Disabled people are good at stuff too. I think it’s really weird for you to make this assumption.
I agree. Even if the task at hand really is moving a couch, coordinatin, organising, etc. are crucial contributions that dont require physical strength or ableness to do.
Honestly it’s both. Plenty of people with disabilities have plenty to offer. A lot actually don’t though, and they still deserve that helping hand.
A family aquatintance has some mental and physical disabilities. They’re just not going to be able to help in any way that isn’t superficial. And that’s okay. Their worth isn’t defined by their utility.
Attaching how worthwhile it is to help someone to their ability to provide a service inherently says the person who can’t isn’t worthy of help.
We should be good to people because it’s the right thing to do, not out of the expectation of a future repayment. More pragmatically, we should help based on the assumption that the other person would, and that if everyone acted like that the world would be better.
I think the other person read a bit much into it, but their base point isn’t wrong.
I find it wild that most people here can’t see through their own assumptions. Like, everyone else needs to examine their own biases. Not them though, they could never be biased. It shows such a lack of self-awareness on their part.
My dad had a prosthetic leg, and he bristled at some of the polite or accepting ways that people would talk about disability in a way that stuck with me because he explained it. Basically a dislike of “handicapable” or the notion that you “make up for it” in other ways. To paraphrase: “getting my foot cut off in a car accident didn’t come with some perk that balanced things out”.
I think a lot of the pushback you got came not from a place of rejecting that they could have a bias, but from the topic being broached as a confrontation of bias instead of an explanation of ignorance.
People, like the poster above, who are being conscientious according to their understanding will get indignant or frustrated when that’s met with an unmatched response.
Assuming positive intent colors implicit “positive abelism”, or other “positive -isms” that I’m personally less knowledgeable about, as unfamiliarity or ignorance rather than callousness or rudeness.
In those cases, the person is very unlikely to disagree or pushback if informed about their blind spot. The key part in their head was “disabled people are just as important”, sitting right next to “good people chip in and contribute”. So they respond to “disabled people can’t always contribute” with “disabled people are important!” phrased as "disabled people can contribute!”.
Addressing it as a bias against disabled people doesn’t fit because that part is correct. Need to address it at where the problem is: a misconception about the relationship between human worth, labor and utility.
Okay, that’s fine and all, but “brocialism” will never be enough because it depends so strongly on a person’s personal connection. It’s not “to each accord to their needs” it’s “to each according to their connections.”
If you don’t see how that disproportionally benefits and privileges in-groups then I don’t know how much clearer I can break it down for you. A socialist society needs mechanisms in place to take care of those who would be forgotten by “brocialism” alone.
Maybe the system works for autistic people who can grill, but what about autistic people who can spend two hours explaining the history of North Rhine-Westphalia or Star Trek lore or any other special interest? You think someone with a truck will view that as an equivalent exchange?
Mind you, I’m not saying their talents are worthless. I’m telling you my experience as a neurodivergent person that most people view these things as lacking value and will marginalize anyone whose contributions consist exclusively of talents that most people consider worthless.
Assuming every autistic person can grill or contribute something that neurotypical people value as having worth is wrong because it marginalizes those who fall outside of that limited group, and because it reinforces the system and the idea that people need to be able to contribute something deemed valuable before they deserve to receive help.
And if you can’t see how that disadvantages the people whose disabilities are the most severe, then I don’t know what will get through to you.
Show me one part of humanity’s development that did not involve social connection. You, as a human being are part of an unbroken chain of social connections spanning back so far that there isn’t even a word for how many generations it is.
Maybe the system works for autistic people who can grill, but what about autistic people who can spend two hours explaining the history of North Rhine-Westphalia or Star Trek lore or any other special interest? You think someone with a truck will view that as an equivalent exchange?
You’re still focusing too much on the minutiae of the reference not the meaning behind it, its not about the grilling the same way it’s not about the truck, the same way small talk isn’t about the weather.
To use your own words
I don’t know how much clearer I can break it down for you
ITS ABOUT MAKING A CONNECTION WITH ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND DISCOVERING THAT NOT EVERYONE IS A CUNT.
I have fully ND mates, who have special interests that they have built communities around. One of whom was genuinely incapable of spending time out in public without being in full body attack mode after less than an hour is now entirely able to spend an entire day out at a festival AND maintain enough social battery to continue spending time with friends well into the evening. Something they have fully admitted to me would not be possible five years ago.
the idea that people need to be able to contribute something deemed valuable before they deserve to receive help.
Some people enjoy conversation. Some people are bad at using maps. Some people need to be able to speak out their thoughts aloud to even begin to analyse them and require a rubberduck that can ask questions.
“Something deemed valuable” can have many meanings to many people, but you’ll never find out what they deem valuable by mentally labelling them as a degenerate that should not be interacted with the second they say something you disagree with.
I think it’s kind of ablist to assume a disabled person has nothing of value to offer, like if they can’t move a couch then they are excluded. “Moving a couch” could be anything, it could be filing taxes or cooking a meal. Disabled people are good at stuff too. I think it’s really weird for you to make this assumption.
I agree. Even if the task at hand really is moving a couch, coordinatin, organising, etc. are crucial contributions that dont require physical strength or ableness to do.
Honestly it’s both. Plenty of people with disabilities have plenty to offer. A lot actually don’t though, and they still deserve that helping hand.
A family aquatintance has some mental and physical disabilities. They’re just not going to be able to help in any way that isn’t superficial. And that’s okay. Their worth isn’t defined by their utility.
Attaching how worthwhile it is to help someone to their ability to provide a service inherently says the person who can’t isn’t worthy of help.
We should be good to people because it’s the right thing to do, not out of the expectation of a future repayment. More pragmatically, we should help based on the assumption that the other person would, and that if everyone acted like that the world would be better.
I think the other person read a bit much into it, but their base point isn’t wrong.
Thank you! You phrased it better than I could.
I find it wild that most people here can’t see through their own assumptions. Like, everyone else needs to examine their own biases. Not them though, they could never be biased. It shows such a lack of self-awareness on their part.
My dad had a prosthetic leg, and he bristled at some of the polite or accepting ways that people would talk about disability in a way that stuck with me because he explained it. Basically a dislike of “handicapable” or the notion that you “make up for it” in other ways. To paraphrase: “getting my foot cut off in a car accident didn’t come with some perk that balanced things out”.
I think a lot of the pushback you got came not from a place of rejecting that they could have a bias, but from the topic being broached as a confrontation of bias instead of an explanation of ignorance.
People, like the poster above, who are being conscientious according to their understanding will get indignant or frustrated when that’s met with an unmatched response.
Assuming positive intent colors implicit “positive abelism”, or other “positive -isms” that I’m personally less knowledgeable about, as unfamiliarity or ignorance rather than callousness or rudeness.
In those cases, the person is very unlikely to disagree or pushback if informed about their blind spot. The key part in their head was “disabled people are just as important”, sitting right next to “good people chip in and contribute”. So they respond to “disabled people can’t always contribute” with “disabled people are important!” phrased as "disabled people can contribute!”.
Addressing it as a bias against disabled people doesn’t fit because that part is correct. Need to address it at where the problem is: a misconception about the relationship between human worth, labor and utility.
What I think is ableist is that you would try to pretend that disabled people don’t get excluded due to society devaluing the things they can offer.
It’s also ableist for you to suggest that a disabled person should be expected to file someone else’s taxes if they need help moving furniture.
You just gave a master class in missing the point.
The same way it isn’t about the couch, it isn’t about the taxes
To each according to their means, to each according to their needs was
Or in brocialism terms “Autism be damned my boy can work a grill”
Every metaphor breaks down if you read it at face value
Okay, that’s fine and all, but “brocialism” will never be enough because it depends so strongly on a person’s personal connection. It’s not “to each accord to their needs” it’s “to each according to their connections.”
If you don’t see how that disproportionally benefits and privileges in-groups then I don’t know how much clearer I can break it down for you. A socialist society needs mechanisms in place to take care of those who would be forgotten by “brocialism” alone.
Maybe the system works for autistic people who can grill, but what about autistic people who can spend two hours explaining the history of North Rhine-Westphalia or Star Trek lore or any other special interest? You think someone with a truck will view that as an equivalent exchange?
Mind you, I’m not saying their talents are worthless. I’m telling you my experience as a neurodivergent person that most people view these things as lacking value and will marginalize anyone whose contributions consist exclusively of talents that most people consider worthless.
Assuming every autistic person can grill or contribute something that neurotypical people value as having worth is wrong because it marginalizes those who fall outside of that limited group, and because it reinforces the system and the idea that people need to be able to contribute something deemed valuable before they deserve to receive help.
And if you can’t see how that disadvantages the people whose disabilities are the most severe, then I don’t know what will get through to you.
Show me one part of humanity’s development that did not involve social connection. You, as a human being are part of an unbroken chain of social connections spanning back so far that there isn’t even a word for how many generations it is.
You’re still focusing too much on the minutiae of the reference not the meaning behind it, its not about the grilling the same way it’s not about the truck, the same way small talk isn’t about the weather.
To use your own words
ITS ABOUT MAKING A CONNECTION WITH ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND DISCOVERING THAT NOT EVERYONE IS A CUNT.
I have fully ND mates, who have special interests that they have built communities around. One of whom was genuinely incapable of spending time out in public without being in full body attack mode after less than an hour is now entirely able to spend an entire day out at a festival AND maintain enough social battery to continue spending time with friends well into the evening. Something they have fully admitted to me would not be possible five years ago.
Some people enjoy conversation. Some people are bad at using maps. Some people need to be able to speak out their thoughts aloud to even begin to analyse them and require a rubberduck that can ask questions.
“Something deemed valuable” can have many meanings to many people, but you’ll never find out what they deem valuable by mentally labelling them as a degenerate that should not be interacted with the second they say something you disagree with.