this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
201 points (99.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13517 readers
1031 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Lol, I’m aware of the argument. Rather arbitrary and idealist. Anyway, sure deaf people can live together, but by definition they are disabled. They lack the ability to hear.

For neurodivergence, I’ve seen multiple people that were like “I’m not disabled? I literally get overwhelmed by touching a bit of grass or feeling sun on me.” Sure they can have shoes on and stay inside, but some of us also can’t stand shoes and love touching grass. I’ve spent a lot of time in very neurodivergent spaces, and it’s still a lot. As an AuDHDer most ADHDers overwhelm me, and I’m too much for most autists. Even in an ND utopia we’d all have to have lots of education and meds and hyper specific accommodations.

nonsense editElaborating on critique of the model, why should our standard be “everything would be fine if [group] just lived with each other and made their own rules?” This is a terrible equivalency, but “Racist white people arent deficient in anything, they just belong in “whites only” places.” Idk, I don’t want to sound ablist, just critiquing idealism. My point isn’t aspie=nazi, but that we’re all human and different and we need to understand each other and seek accommodations, not isolate.

Of course all debate around language (“disabled”) is bound to be idealist, idk.

Ultimately a reasonable criterion is what do these groups themselves want to be called? I’m not in the blind community but I know lot of NDs consider themselves disabled.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Agreed… disability is a biologically relative term, not socially relative. A society which fully accommodates deafness would not actually abolish deafness.

Someone I know has a hearing disability. It’s not like they are unable to survive without me, but hearing would absolutely make them safer at times. For example, when walking through a dangerous part of town, there is a reason hearing people don’t wear headphones. In nature, it’s a good thing if you can hear rattlesnakes or idk, a bear charing at you lol.

Does that mean a deaf person cannot live a life as rich as a hearing person? I don’t believe that at all. Like said above, there can be certain subjective upsides to deafness that might balance the losses. But it’s still a disability.