This is what I think of whenever I hear that Behan quote… I don’t know why!
2 Likes
The general advice I would give is the same one that’s in the default new user education panel that appears on everyone’s first two posts, when they start typing their replies…
Kindness is a must! But also being respectful of the conversation by not repeating the same talking points, etc.
2 Likes
Well, I did agree, but I do think there are limits.
Like when someone starts suggesting that [insert persecuted minority] people should be rounded up… [Like in the gluten intolerance thread]
P.S.
A series of these posts have been removed with the note “Mod note: Stay on topic”
I am a bit more concerned by the fact a series of these posts were victim-blaming, harassing, and calling for rounding up people with disabilities, than with the fact that they were off-topic.
It’s interesting how, earlier in this thread, you were against people misrepresenting your posts. I haven’t said you, or any persecuted minority, should be rounded up. Nor would I characterize my comments as harassing, though that’s another matter.
The quote always brings this song to mind for me. Very appropriate given the day - enjoy!
You said:
On the other hand, if the fetal-position-in-the-middle-of-the-street risk is that significant, I also think you are an equally significant risk to both yourself and others if you are allowed to be out in public.
And:
If disabled, LGBT, or any group of people are a serious risk of lying down in the middle of the street, then we would probably want to keep them away from streets, too. This has nothing to do with them being LGBT, disabled, old, senile, infants, or anything else: it has to do with them being dangers to others.
I asked:
So because abled people keep hurting me, you think abled people should lock me up?
And you stuck to your rationales, and your insistence that we should somehow be kept from going about in public, and you didn’t explain what else you had in mind, so it sure sounds like you think we should be rounded up.
I did point out that I wasn’t “lying down,” I was curling up in extreme pain, because I have hyperacusis and abled people use incapacitating sonic weapons as safety features. I also did point out that we are the ones in danger because of this.
1 Like
I don’t think what I said is equivalent to me saying that we should “round up” persecuted minorities. It is more like, at most, a placing administrative or preventative holds on people who are a risk to others, and at least something akin to the revocation of a driver’s license.
That this is not related to them being members of a persecuted minority is made clear by the second block of text you quote, where I clarify that it is the dangerous aspect of the behaviour itself that is troubling, and not the affiliation of the actors.
You brought this up much later in the conversation, and you still haven’t clarified what these “sonic weapons” are.
The initial comment I responded to was a rather context free remark about how going to the doctor’s office involved major obstacles like making phone calls, and might well cause you to collapse in the street in agony. If I hadn’t read about your multitude of afflictions in prior posts, I would have assumed this talk of collapsing in the street was written in farce.
[quote=“codinghorror, post:47, topic:51847, full:true”]
I think the golden rule @bwv812 is to ask not just “is this civll”, but “is this kind?”
[/quote]I suspect @MarjaE thinks Xeni’s post mocking gluten-free diets was unkind. The entire thread is about what kind of accommodations are reasonable, with major tension between those who insist on their ailments and those who are skeptical. I don’t think it’s particularly unkind—or off-topic—to offer an opinion on whether society should have to accommodate every affliction, regardless of how rare.
Except that this isn’t about driving, this is about walking around. So at best, this is about house arrest.
Except that this is a proposal to … either house-arrest or just-plain-arrest disabled people for our disabilities … and this is in a long history of confining disabled people, abuse against disabled people, etc. with the same rationales.
You brought this up much later in the conversation, and you still haven’t clarified what these “sonic weapons” are.
I have mentioned them several times, I thought I explained them again in that thread.
I don’t think it’s particularly unkind—or off-topic—to offer an opinion on whether society should have to accommodate every affliction, regardless of how rare.
I think it is the definition of unkind.
I know there are practical problems, but part of the idea of society is to include and enable everyone. If society excludes or disables someone, it fails.
As an example of the practical problems, some of the streets have beepers to make it easier for blind people to cross. Unfortunately, these beepers also incapacitate me. I think they can incapacitate many other sensory-sensitive and autistic people. I don’t object to the presence of accessibility tools here, but I do think there need to be better options. More often trucks, construction equipment, certain cars, certain scooters, etc. have beepers to indicate when they are backing up. Again, these beepers also incapacitate me. I do think there need to be better options. In the meantime, I am in danger if I try to go anywhere.
This entire thread reminds me of Vonnegut
https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt
1 Like
That’s a fair point, and it’s better than simply saying I said we should round up a particular group of oppressed people.
On the other hand, there’s still a big problem with people who might—for whatever reason—collapse in the middle of the road. If that’s a real problem and one you can’t address by wearing industrial-strength hearing protection and/or noise-cancelling headgear, then you are potentially (and knowingly) placing other people in danger.
It’s not the definition of unkind. No solution will balance the needs of everyone equally and fully inclusively. I mean, you basically acknowledge this in your example: in order to be “kind” to you, society would have to be “unkind” to the hearing impaired, to those who rely on auditory signals, to the general public, etc.
Society isn’t going to be able to meet the needs of everyone equally. Good faith attempts to meet the needs of the public isn’t an unkindness, even if these measures are to the unfortunate detriment of a very small minority.
5 Likes
But the present situation excludes many of us with lesser-known disabilities from society, and subjects many of us to violence, and your solution would exclude even more of us even further.
What do you mean by ‘violence’? Are you calling the use of these so-called “sonic weapons” violence? If so, you are stretching definitions to the absurd. It may be unpleasant and even debilitating to you, but this isn’t what most people would accept as “violence.”
There are probably a few people out there who find certain colours to be triggering, debilitating, or whatever. Should you take personal responsibility for wearing those colours, and think of yourself as subjecting them to violence if you do? Should we make accommodations for every single color averse person, lest we exclude them from society? You don’t want your participation in society to be limited, but what if the cost is limiting the freedoms of others?
2 Likes
It is only absurd because my disabled experiences aren’t considered as valid as your abled experiences.
I was bullied growing up, for being disabled, autistic, intersex, and trans. I was beaten unconscious. I was later beaten and gassed. I thought I was going to die. I would say being hit by these painhammers/beepers feels worse than being beaten unconscious, but not as bad as being gassed. I would say it is just as incapacitating as it is. As far as I’m concerned, all these things are violence.
If people suddenly started grabbing you and hurting you and holding you unable to move, would you consider it violence?
If this kept up, day after day, until you wanted to die to escape the pain, would you consider it violence?
If people harassed you for getting grabbed, would you consider it violence?
2 Likes
The word “violence” has a fairly well established definition, which pretty much always includes physical force. You using the word “violence” without any qualifiers will mislead a lot of people.
I’m sorry if things feel terrible, and worse than physical violence. That doesn’t mean it’s properly described as “violence” any more than it’s properly described as being repeatedly punched in the face, even if it feels like it.
So, to answer your question, I wouldn’t consider those things not involving physical force “violence” (although something like “psychic violence,” indicating the metaphorical nature, might be appropriate).
I’m reading this topic and seeing a lot more heat than light. I’m not sure what the exact issue is. @MarjaE has been fairly clear on the behaviors she considers problematic, but I’m afraid I don’t follow beyond that.
The impression I get of what is happening [is this][1]. I would call that harassment to some extent, but on a forum, it’s not easy to police. I don’t see mods banning people for addressing or replying to a post that is part of the conversation, just because someone doesn’t want them to. I’m not even sure that falls under “asshole-behavior” in and of itself. Like I said, I’m not clear on what @MarjaE is trying to address, so apologies if this is somehow off the mark.
I do think a reasonable compromise is an “Ignore” feature, which hides posts from a user you don’t want to see. @codinghorror, does this seem like a useful idea? I do see some issues with it, but I think a beta-test could be useful. [1]: http://wondermark.com/1k62/
1 Like
As far as I’m concerned, the painhammer is physical violence, and the harassment is emotional violence, the proverbial adding insult to injury.
I’m inclined to say that someone has to intend to cause harm for an action to be labeled “violent.” If I walk by a building and someone accidentally drops something off the roof onto me, it may be careless and negligent, but it’s not violent. On the other hand, if they deliberately throw something onto me, that could more readily be called violent.
2 Likes
The question is, who’s doing the sea lioning.
Popping up regularly to say “you’re doing me violence by not silencing the world so I can go out in it” is not generally a particularly collaborative approach to dialogue.
2 Likes
Some perspective here.
Maybe for you this is an abstract question.
But for me this is life.
How would you deal with the suggestion that “[you should not be] allowed to be out in public” for the rest of your life?
How would you deal with the claim that it’s always your responsibility to better protect yourself, when you’ve done everything you can, and it’s never anyone else’s responsibility to not harm you?
How would you take the claim, not here, but frequent elsewhere, that “[you] are a burden on society”?
How would you take the proliferation of pain amplifiers?
How would you take the hate groups?
How would you take it when your rep sends you a form letter saying how much he supports the Combating [People Like You] Act?
How would you take your life always being up for debate?
