|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Memory eternal, Alex Spourdalakis
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Out of curiosity, how "special" is an interest that affects just about everybody?
That's the thing - it doesn't. It affects those who have [a] condition and their loved ones/carers, but anyone who is in neither category is unaffected.
And no amount of "you'll be in that boat one day" scare tactics will change that.
Maybe we also need to define "affect."
Here are people who are neither "disabled," by whatever the going definition is, nor necessarily loved ones or carers of same:
I am a clerk in a small neighborhood store. A customer approaches my counter and starts signing at me, and I have no idea what s/he wants or how to communicate with him/her.
I am a clerk in a small neighborhood store. A customer approaches my counter and starts talking to me, but his tongue is too big for his mouth (Down syndrome) and I can't understand him. I have no idea what he wants or how to communicate with him.
I'm waitstaff at a neighborhood café. A customer sits in my station, but I can't make out what s/he wants.
I am a lifeguard at the town swimming pool. Is that guy in the water flailing around because he's drowning, or is he just flailing around? Should I help him, stop him, or ignore him?
I'm a cop on the beat. Is that guy carrying on in the street on drugs, mentally ill, developmentally disabled, or criminal, or some combination of the above? If I make the wrong call, bad things could happen not only to him, but to me.
I'm a cab driver who doesn't know how to deal with his fare's wheelchair, nor whether or how to assist the fare to transfer into my vehicle.
I work at a rental agency where we're advertising a property, and a caller wants to know if it's accessible. Of course, I explain, it's right on a bus line and the apartment's only two steps up from the street.
I'm a college lecturer who keeps showing important info on PowerPoint diagrams which mean nothing to my blind student.
I'm a subway token booth attendant who thinks I can make the deaf passenger understand my directions if I just shout louder.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I've seen this term used a lot, but never as a scare tactic - more as a way to challenge the 'them and us' attitude that is so often prevalent. It can be quite effective.
It isn't working on Marvin, Sine or me. For me it doesn't challenge "them vs. us" attitudes so much as it doesn't face the reality of them and the reality from which those attitudes spring, which is that we don't all have the same levels of ability or face the same challenges or whatever you want to call it.
quote:
We are limited - in time, money, and the number of things our brain can focus on. It makes sense for people to advocate the causes they have some kind of experience with - they will be a better advocate because they can talk about the examples they know and have real empathy and passion towards it.
Who are these advocates listening to? If everybody is so busy advocating for the thing they care about because they are intimately affected by it, no one is listening and learning to care about things that don't intimately affect them. I am never going to have the feelings about Alex Spourdalakis' death that Josephine has. She's spent years advocating for her own children's needs, which aren't well met by the systems we have, while I don't have children at all and all the kids I know go to regular schools and are doing just fine in them. And try as I might, my imagination is only going to go so far. I really can't imagine what his mother went through in trying to care for him. I am never going to be in that position. I have it easy with my folks, too, as they are relatively affluent and can pay for all the things they're going to need as my dad's condition worsens. So give me a reason to care about what happens to people who face things I will never face. Telling people who will never deal with a child like Alex Spourdalakis that they should change their views because they're "temporarily abled" is useless, because the vast majority of them know that they will never be diapering a 14-year-old.
Maybe someday things will really suck for me, but maybe they won't. Old people don't all have the same situations. In the meantime, being threatened with the bogey-man of being "temporarily abled" isn't doing a damn thing to influence my views about public services (which are socialist, by the way). "Temporarily abled" implies that sooner or later, in the end, life is fair -- which is an enormous lie.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
"Temporarily abled" implies that sooner or later, in the end, life is fair -- which is an enormous lie.
Yes. Thank-you. That's it exactly. I wasn't able to form the words.
(I've been sitting here thinking about my high school senior English teacher who spent an awful lot of time talking to us about 'the human condition'.)
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
"Temporarily abled" implies that sooner or later, in the end, life is fair -- which is an enormous lie.
Life is fair? I agree that's an enormous lie. I think "TAB" says that life, sooner or later, for pretty much everybody, is a lopsided crap shoot, with us on the losing end (albeit in a wide variety of very different ways). It's a way to acknowledge, "I could be in those shoes" -- or that chair, or what have you. It's a secular version of "There but for the grace of God go I."
There's absolutely nothing fair about that. There is no equality within our separate sufferings, either. Neither is there much to be gained from measuring these against one another.
Once upon a time, people in my field though community placement held the answers. Stop locking people away and segregating them, and communities would eventually take the funny-acting, funny-looking people in and accept them -- the "assimilating newcomers" model.
It hasn't worked (and in my state, taxpayers spent vast amounts of taxpayer money funding two parallel systems over more than a decade to accomplish this in a reasonably gradual way). I don't know what the bigwigs in my field learned from that. I learned you can't buy acceptance. You can't impose or legislate acceptance.
Beyond that, I'm stuck.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
"Temporarily abled" implies that sooner or later, in the end, life is fair -- which is an enormous lie.
Life is fair? I agree that's an enormous lie. I think "TAB" says that life, sooner or later, for pretty much everybody, is a lopsided crap shoot, with us on the losing end (albeit in a wide variety of very different ways). It's a way to acknowledge, "I could be in those shoes" -- or that chair, or what have you. It's a secular version of "There but for the grace of God go I."
“You fall out of your mother's womb, you crawl across open country under fire, and drop into your grave.” - Quentin Crisp
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I've seen this term used a lot, but never as a scare tactic - more as a way to challenge the 'them and us' attitude that is so often prevalent. It can be quite effective.
It isn't working on Marvin, Sine or me. For me it doesn't challenge "them vs. us" attitudes so much as it doesn't face the reality of them and the reality from which those attitudes spring, which is that we don't all have the same levels of ability or face the same challenges or whatever you want to call it.
Maybe it doesn't need to 'work' on you, because maybe you don't have the 'them and us' attitude to be begin with.
But I'm not sure how the term suggests people don't have different levels of ability. To me it simply suggests that someone is currently fortunate enough to have an able body, but that this won't necessarily always be the case. It is a reminder of the uncertainty of life. Perhaps 'currently able bodied' would be better? But I see everything in this life as temporary. When I have worked in care homes with elderly people, I have felt very aware of how temporary my able body is.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
We are limited - in time, money, and the number of things our brain can focus on. It makes sense for people to advocate the causes they have some kind of experience with - they will be a better advocate because they can talk about the examples they know and have real empathy and passion towards it.
Who are these advocates listening to? If everybody is so busy advocating for the thing they care about because they are intimately affected by it, no one is listening and learning to care about things that don't intimately affect them. I am never going to have the feelings about Alex Spourdalakis' death that Josephine has. She's spent years advocating for her own children's needs, which aren't well met by the systems we have, while I don't have children at all and all the kids I know go to regular schools and are doing just fine in them. And try as I might, my imagination is only going to go so far. I really can't imagine what his mother went through in trying to care for him. I am never going to be in that position. I have it easy with my folks, too, as they are relatively affluent and can pay for all the things they're going to need as my dad's condition worsens. So give me a reason to care about what happens to people who face things I will never face. Telling people who will never deal with a child like Alex Spourdalakis that they should change their views because they're "temporarily abled" is useless, because the vast majority of them know that they will never be diapering a 14-year-old. .
I'm kind of confused what you're arguing here. Why would the fact that people advocate mean they don't listen to others?
Personally, having an understanding of what it's like to be on the autism spectrum, to struggle with certain things that others take for granted, like recognising faces and understanding social interaction, and to experience people's mockery, prejudice and rudeness as a result has given me a bit of an insight into what it's like for people with other disabilities that I don't have, and also what it's like in general to be part of a group that is not the default. Equally, having people make assumptions about me based on stereotypes, and based on their own experiences rather than asking about mine, has made me aware that I can't ever assume to fully know what something is like for someone else, so I must always have an open mind. I can of course never know exactly what it's like to be someone that I'm not. And there will always be limitations to my empathy, and blind spots - same with everyone. But to me that isn't a dreadful thing. That's just life.
I can't give you a reason to care about anyone. Why should I? If you don't care about certain people who are experiencing things that you haven't experienced, that's your lookout. It's not for me to give you reasons to care. I'm simply saying that the term 'temporarily able bodied' has been effective for some people (not everyone - of course not everyone) - often people who had simplistic 'them and us' attitudes previously. But of course it is more effective within a whole dialogue about disability, where people have open minds and are trying to understand. Not people who say 'I don't care - give me a reason to care.' It's not about people saying 'You have to care because you're temporarily abled' - I've never come across anyone saying that. It's not about making people care - it's about giving another perspective, to people who are open to another perspective.
Generally caring begins by experiencing something yourself, and then seeing how it extends to other situations. You seem to see that as terribly selfish - I simply see it as how the human mind is able to process things. Not just with regard to empathy, but with regard to understanding anything, like maths or physics. It needs to be related to things you have previously begun to understand through them being meaningful to you. That's why Jesus explained spiritual things by using parables relating to everyday things that people could relate to.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Jesus also just flat out said, "Feed the poor." I think waiting for people to help based on their own ability to feel empathy for that particular problem may be the long way around. I think it might be better if we just coldly said, old, sick, disabled people need health care, shelter and food, and those of us who are able to work should pool together to pay for it. (I'm trying to avoid the "t" word.)
We can say "There but fortune go I," ( I believe it's more fortune than God's grace which I like to think is more evenly distributed) but that doesn't buy anyone's medication.
Every year at this time my church goes nuts with the Relay for Life cancer drive. Every year at the same time we have the March of Dimes and I actually don't think it's possible to raise breast cancer awareness any higher than it already is. I once saw a list of diseases in a graph showing the amount of annual charity money collected per person with the disease. Some conditions collected thousands per person, my own concern, schizophrenia, had $14 collected annually per person -- less than for dental cavities. There is no fairness in any of this and I don't think changing the wording is going to make much difference. Those March of Dimes babies are always going to open more pocket books than those scary, homeless schizophrenic men.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I think "TAB" says that life, sooner or later, for pretty much everybody, is a lopsided crap shoot, with us on the losing end (albeit in a wide variety of very different ways). It's a way to acknowledge, "I could be in those shoes" -- or that chair, or what have you. It's a secular version of "There but for the grace of God go I."
That's not what it communicates to me. The only great equalizer is death. What you put into parentheses is important, I think -- the wide variety of situations prior to death is why "temporarily able-bodied" is a huge gloss over reality. There are shoes I will never, ever walk in. Saying "there but for the grace of God go I" is equally bullshit. God didn't reach out a finger and bless me with good health and then look at Alex Spourdalakis and say "sucks to be you."
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I can't give you a reason to care about anyone. Why should I? If you don't care about certain people who are experiencing things that you haven't experienced, that's your lookout.
I'm with Twilight. We should support public services for people who need them because it's the right thing to do. It's actually not my lookout if I don't care about some people -- they'll suffer in ways that I don't even know about.
Look, one way or another, the full humanity of Alex Spourdalakis and the homeless guy sleeping in front of the gate at my job and countless other people needs to be acknowledged and provided for. Saying "hey, that could be you!" is not going to help make that happen, because it's demonstrably not them, and most people aren't going to think in those kinds of hypothetical terms. Lots of people can't even get their shit together to save money for their own old age because it seems so unreal to them, never mind wrap their minds around other potential problems -- and that's for themselves. Witness the shock people feel when disaster does strike: "I never thought it could happen to me." It's silly to think "it could be you" is going to make a lot of headway when you're talking about situations like that of the Spourdalakis family.
The appeal to emotion is far too limited because our empathy is for the most part too limited. I think we've got to find ways to get ourselves to recognize humanity in people we don't know, people we don't understand, people we don't empathize with. That whole thing about walking a mile in someone else's shoes sounds great, but I can only do that with a limited number of people -- everyone else I'm going to somehow just have to find a way to say, yes, they're human, yes, they have needs, and yes, they deserve all the same basic things I want for me and the people I do know, love, understand.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Telling people who will never deal with a child like Alex Spourdalakis that they should change their views because they're "temporarily abled" is useless, because the vast majority of them know that they will never be diapering a 14-year-old.
I (maybe) see what you're getting at, but I don't think the messages link up in that way -- at least, for me they don't.
You're right; nobody's going to give a crap about people like my clients or like Alex on the premise that "Gosh, I might crash my motorcycle next week while not wearing my helmet (I live in a state where you aren't required to wear one and no, don't get me started) and end up with a traumatic brain injury and looking/acting like that."
First, people who seriously believe they're likely to crash probably aren't zipping around on motorcycles, or if they do take that seriously, they wear helmets.
Second, most of us see folks like Alex as "not like me." That, right there, is the nut that holds the wheel, and it's not even a quarter-turn from there to "not quite human." And we all know what happens to those we classify as "not quite human."
Years ago, when my state was closing down its "school" (so-called) for the "retarded" (original name), I was a complaints investigator, combing through the records of the school's clients for evidence to support their complaints.
That's where I discovered that the "school's" dentist, employed there for 7 years, never used anesthesia because his patients, according to him, were incapable of feeling pain.
I don't know how much Novacaine costs, but he must have saved the "school" a bundle.
Just think about that: That dentist, in an institution which, at maximum population, held some 1500 people, infants to geriatric folks, all being treated for their dental needs by that fucking sadist.
There was a lot more of that nature in those files.
It took the agency I then worked for about 4 years to work through the "school" cases we had, and my nightmares didn't stop for some 3 years after that.
The TAB thing, from my perspective, is just a reminder that we're all vulnerable. As to changing people's views of folks like Alex, maybe what's needed is more light shone on things like that dentist.
And more public attention must be paid to the plights and trials of families like Alex's.
Deep down, wrong as I might be, I believe Alex's death was preventable. If I lived in that state and knew the systems there, I'd be digging. I'd want to write a book, I'd want to unravel the story of his life, and his carers' idee fixe about his condition. I'd want to talk to the local school, everybody who ever spoke to anyone from that family. Somewhere, somehow, there was a moment (or even several) where the course their lives were on could have turned a different corner and led to an Alex still alive and his family with a workable, tolerable situation.
That's what might change people's views.
Sine mentioned the human condition, and he was right: we all suffer, one way or another; who escapes?
We are not, however, required to inflict that suffering on one another.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Jesus also just flat out said, "Feed the poor." I think waiting for people to help based on their own ability to feel empathy for that particular problem may be the long way around. I think it might be better if we just coldly said, old, sick, disabled people need health care, shelter and food, and those of us who are able to work should pool together to pay for it. (I'm trying to avoid the "t" word.)
This I agree with. If a person is motivated to follow and obey Jesus, then this will motivate them to do what Jesus asks, regardless of whether they personally feel any empathy. Of course, if they then do it, they are likely to develop some kind of empathy, because when you are helping someone practically, you get to know them, and when you get to know someone and talk with them, you understand them more.
Of course, not everyone is motivated to follow and obey Jesus, so this won't work as a motivating factor for everyone either. People are motivated by a whole jumble of complex and often contradictory things.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Look, one way or another, the full humanity of Alex Spourdalakis and the homeless guy sleeping in front of the gate at my job and countless other people needs to be acknowledged and provided for. Saying "hey, that could be you!" is not going to help make that happen, because it's demonstrably not them, and most people aren't going to think in those kinds of hypothetical terms. Lots of people can't even get their shit together to save money for their own old age because it seems so unreal to them, never mind wrap their minds around other potential problems -- and that's for themselves. Witness the shock people feel when disaster does strike: "I never thought it could happen to me." It's silly to think "it could be you" is going to make a lot of headway when you're talking about situations like that of the Spourdalakis family.
The appeal to emotion is far too limited because our empathy is for the most part too limited. I think we've got to find ways to get ourselves to recognize humanity in people we don't know, people we don't understand, people we don't empathize with. That whole thing about walking a mile in someone else's shoes sounds great, but I can only do that with a limited number of people -- everyone else I'm going to somehow just have to find a way to say, yes, they're human, yes, they have needs, and yes, they deserve all the same basic things I want for me and the people I do know, love, understand.
Ah, okay, so you were arguing that people don't get motivated by empathy, because that is not how you get motivated? Actually, emotional appeals don't tend to do much for me either - I am motivated much more by reason and conscience, and emotional appeals tend to irritate me.
But that doesn't make me dislike the term 'temporarily able bodied', because I don't see it as an emotional appeal - just a statement of fact, and a different perspective from what a lot of people naturally have. It's never made me feel scared or emotional in any way.
Also, the fact that I don't get motivated by emotional appeals doesn't, to me, mean that no one does. I observe different people have different personalities - and some make decisions based on emotions, and others based on reason. From what I observe of people's donations to charity, emotional appeal is a big motivator - breast cancer, for instance, gets a lot more support than testicular cancer. Women are motivated to see it as a women's solidarity thing, with a pretty pink ribbon, and women's mums might have died of it, which makes more women aware that their own mums could die of it, etc.
Also, a lot more money is raised for children with autism than for adults with autism. Because children with autism are seen as cute. Of course the appeal to emotion is limited, but for many people it is their main motivating factor, and I don't think that is wrong. God made us all with different personalities. And although people's empathy is of course limited to what they know, it can be expanded as their knowledge grows - not just their personal knowledge, but their knowledge of people they meet, and their ability to make connections with their own experiences and that of others, even those who at first glance may seem very different from themselves.
Actually, the appeal to reason is limited too - because people's reason is limited, and people are full of double standards, and selfish motivations, and rationalisation. I'd simply say that no one's motivations are ever pure, and they are always limited, but still, God is able to do good things through us anyway, if we let him.
As for my use of 'that's your lookout', I meant that is your responsibility what you do - that is, that it it is up to you. That is what 'your lookout' means. I had to check, because I got worried I was misusing a non-literal expression for a moment! But I used it correctly. It doesn't necessarily mean that you know the effects you have on others. Most people don't.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
But that doesn't make me dislike the term 'temporarily able bodied', because I don't see it as an emotional appeal - just a statement of fact
A statement of fact or a statement of possibility?
I know plenty of people who've been quite 'able-bodied' up into their 70s & even into their 80s. Maybe not like they were at 25 but not 'disabled' either.
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
(Actually 'temporarily able bodied' is a propaganda phrase exactly like 'the unborn' or 'marriage equality' meant to sway the emotions or opinion of the listener. Nothing wrong with trying to do that – we all have agendas to promote - but best to be clear about it and not dress it up in the cloak of righteousness.)
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Myeah, but it doesn't really work, Sine. Only the other day, I said to a young lady, 'Goodness, your tits look amazing in that top, but I only say this because I want to put my willy in you', and she didn't even have sex with me.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
But that doesn't make me dislike the term 'temporarily able bodied', because I don't see it as an emotional appeal - just a statement of fact
A statement of fact or a statement of possibility?
I know plenty of people who've been quite 'able-bodied' up into their 70s & even into their 80s. Maybe not like they were at 25 but not 'disabled' either.
Fact in that I am at the moment able bodied. And that my body won't last forever. As I said earlier, maybe some would prefer 'currently able bodied'? That's all we can say. The body isn't permanent.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
But that doesn't make me dislike the term 'temporarily able bodied', because I don't see it as an emotional appeal - just a statement of fact
A statement of fact or a statement of possibility?
I know plenty of people who've been quite 'able-bodied' up into their 70s & even into their 80s. Maybe not like they were at 25 but not 'disabled' either.
Fact in that I am at the moment able bodied. And that my body won't last forever. As I said earlier, maybe some would prefer 'currently able bodied'? That's all we can say. The body isn't permanent.
Maybe we should just say 'currently alive'.
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
(Actually 'temporarily able bodied' is a propaganda phrase exactly like 'the unborn' or 'marriage equality' meant to sway the emotions or opinion of the listener. Nothing wrong with trying to do that – we all have agendas to promote - but best to be clear about it and not dress it up in the cloak of righteousness.)
Yes, it was coined and is used for effect, but not necessarily emotional effect, as far as I'm aware. Not necessarily to 'scare' people, as people have been saying. I've never experienced it used that way, and I have been quite involved in disability rights. I've seen it used to challenge the 'them and us' attitude to disability. It gives a person a different perspective that they might not have thought of before. Rather like the slogan 'People are gay. Get over it.' Like all slogans, it won't be effective or popular with everyone, but it will have an effect on some.
I'm not sure what you mean by dressing it up in a 'cloak of righteousness'. That makes it sound like it's something bad being disguised as something good. If people are trying to promote equal rights, and trying different ways of trying to change people's perspectives, some may see that as a positive, good thing. Cambridge University have been doing it recently with women's rights.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
You've totally lost me, Yorick, but I'm ok with that.
Well it's just that you said we should be clear about the agendas that we're trying to promote when we say stuff. I was pointing out that this approach can in fact result in the very opposite outcome to the one you want.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Maybe we should just say 'currently alive'.
You could say that too. That is a good reminder of our mortality. It depends what perspective and focus you are taking. There is the focus that we are mortal, and there is also the focus that while we are alive, we cannot take our able-bodied status for granted. The latter is the perspective that disability activists want people to be aware of.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
(Actually 'temporarily able bodied' is a propaganda phrase exactly like 'the unborn' or 'marriage equality' meant to sway the emotions or opinion of the listener. Nothing wrong with trying to do that – we all have agendas to promote - but best to be clear about it and not dress it up in the cloak of righteousness.)
Actually, no it's not. It's meant to make people think, because no one has any guarantee of not becoming disabled through accident or crime at any time and the vast majority of people do become disabled in their elderly years - it may be arthritis in their 50's or 60's or stroke or disease of some sort then or after. The problem is too many people think it won't ever happen to them, thus enabling the asinine "us vs. them" thinking.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
(Actually 'temporarily able bodied' is a propaganda phrase exactly like 'the unborn' or 'marriage equality' meant to sway the emotions or opinion of the listener. Nothing wrong with trying to do that – we all have agendas to promote - but best to be clear about it and not dress it up in the cloak of righteousness.)
Actually, no it's not. It's meant to make people think, because no one has any guarantee of not becoming disabled
Actually yes it is. Because just like 'the unborn' or 'marriage equality' it is meant to produce a specific emotional response – one that you don't get from 'fetus' or 'gay marriage'.
(Personally I have an 88 year old father who's confined to an electric scooter. I'm grateful every day that I get up and am not in pain and can go to the gym and work out. I certainly realize it's a gift and that it's not open ended. But once again that is just a part of the human condition as far as I'm concerned. The 7 ages of Man, etc.)
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
You've totally lost me, Yorick, but I'm ok with that.
Well it's just that you said we should be clear about the agendas that we're trying to promote when we say stuff. I was pointing out that this approach can in fact result in the very opposite outcome to the one you want.
NO!!!! You need to be clear about your own agenda. That doesn't mean you have to shout it from the rooftop to others. Please go immediately to the dating thread in All Saints and ask for their help!
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
There is the focus that we are mortal, and there is also the focus that while we are alive, we cannot take our able-bodied status for granted. The latter is the perspective that disability activists want people to be aware of.
Yes, so that you can scare them into giving money to your cause on the off chance that they'll need it themselves some day.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
Something else occurs to me. When people are helping people purely because it is 'the right thing to do', because they believe God wants them to, etc., it can actually be very patronising, self-righeous, and full of a 'them and us' attitude. Not intentionally, of course - but it is very easy for people who are full of good intentions to have an attitude of 'Here am I, doing good, helping these poor, unfortunate people.'
And people pick up on such attitudes and can feel ostracised and marginalised by them. The 'them and us' attitude is very disempowering.
It makes me sad that disability equality should be so lagging behind racial, gender and sexuality equality - whose campaigners have all had various slogans to make people think and to challenge their prejudices and 'them and us' attitudes. All these slogans could probably be pulled apart and criticised, as anything can be, but they have done good, and resulted in a lot of people changing their attitudes. And here disability equality campaigners have one slogan so far. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticise - just as people jeered and criticised some of the attempts of feminists and gay rights activists. But I see it as a positive thing, and I look forward to more slogans and campaigns.
Of course people don't like to think of the vulnerability of their able bodied status - the fact that they could lose their ability to walk, to talk, etc. And perhaps that is why disability equality is lagging behind so much - perhaps the concept of one's own vulnerability is the thing people most want to deny, and are most motivated to create a 'them and us' attitude to avoid. But if change has happened around people's attitudes to people of different races, to women, and to gay people, I don't see why it can't happen with people with disabilities.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
There is the focus that we are mortal, and there is also the focus that while we are alive, we cannot take our able-bodied status for granted. The latter is the perspective that disability activists want people to be aware of.
Yes, so that you can scare them into giving money to your cause on the off chance that they'll need it themselves some day.
It actually isn't all about money. It's about awareness, and being respected as equal human beings.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
(Actually 'temporarily able bodied' is a propaganda phrase exactly like 'the unborn' or 'marriage equality' meant to sway the emotions or opinion of the listener. Nothing wrong with trying to do that – we all have agendas to promote - but best to be clear about it and not dress it up in the cloak of righteousness.)
Actually, no it's not. It's meant to make people think, because no one has any guarantee of not becoming disabled
Actually yes it is. Because just like 'the unborn' or 'marriage equality' it is meant to produce a specific emotional response – one that you don't get from 'fetus' or 'gay marriage'.
Actually, I think you'll find the majority of those of us who are disabled would prefer people think rationally instead of responding emotionally. It's the emotion of fear of becoming disabled that is behind almost all of the prejudice we face.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
There is the focus that we are mortal, and there is also the focus that while we are alive, we cannot take our able-bodied status for granted. The latter is the perspective that disability activists want people to be aware of.
Yes, so that you can scare them into giving money to your cause on the off chance that they'll need it themselves some day.
As has been stated a couple of times already, it's not fear we want people to have as that is behind most of the prejudice we face. Fineline is correct in.
[ 20. June 2013, 15:04: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
It actually isn't all about money.
So all those changes and accommodations and extra facilities the advocacy groups are demanding come for free?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Actually, I think you'll find the majority of those of us who are disabled would prefer people think rationally instead of responding emotionally. It's the emotion of fear of becoming disabled that is behind almost all of the prejudice we face.
This.
I think it must be fear that makes people opposed to the concept of 'temporarily abled' and builds up the 'them and us' attitudes. The people who've accepted it as a term are not scared by it.
Besides, before this sort of campaigning by disabled people, the campaigners were non-disabled people trying to elicit the emotion of pity. I think the vast majority of disabled people don't want to be pitied. That is the ultimate 'them and us' attitude. Whether it's an emotion or rationality, I'd far rather people had the understanding that I'm a human being like them. 'Temporarily abled' is the first term to actually bridge the distance between 'them' and 'us'.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
It actually isn't all about money.
So all those changes and accommodations and extra facilities the advocacy groups are demanding come for free?
In this case it's normally about allocation of funds. Whether the funds should only go for those who are the able-bodied majority, or whether actually everyone should have access to community activities, etc. Rather like the idea that women should have the right to vote, that black people should be free to go to the same schools as white people and have the same pay as white people, etc.
My point was that it's not all about money. It is also very much about attitude. That is the main thing. Changing society's attitudes so that certain people aren't seen as inferior and not worth certain human rights. As has been done with other minority groups. Personally, I think this is very important, and I can't really understand why people are griping about being reminded that their body won't necessarily always be able bodied, when that is simply a fact of life, and a very good reminder that disabled people are not a sub-human group totally exclusive from able-bodied people.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
Incidentally, are any of the people on this thread who are arguing against disabled people campaigning for equal rights by using a phrase that might possibly elicit emotion in people and remind them of their own vulnerability disabled themselves?
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
What? Are disabled people not allowed to vote, leave their property to whom they choose, or to marry those they love? I had no idea! This discrimination must be stopped immediately! It's outrageous.
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
What? Are disabled people not allowed to vote, leave their property to whom they choose, or to marry those they love? I had no idea! This discrimination must be stopped immediately! It's outrageous.
Yes, those things often happen. It can depend on whether the disabled people are given support, what support they are given, who their care workers are, how accessible the buildings are, whether they are enabled to communicate if they are unable to talk, etc. Yes, it is outrageous. How do you propose stopping it?
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
Get the Guv'mint to spend more money obviously. That's always the answer. And to do that you have to lobby. And to lobby successfully you need a catchy slogan…
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Rather like the idea that women should have the right to vote, that black people should be free to go to the same schools as white people and have the same pay as white people, etc.
Those things didn't require any new facilities to be built (and therefore funded), just that what already existed be made available to everyone. To put it crudely: giving women the vote didn't mean every polling station suddenly had to make sure it had step-free access, someone on hand who could sign, braille signage and so forth. These things all cost money, whereas not caring about the gender/race of anyone who comes through the door costs nothing.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
What? Are disabled people not allowed to vote, leave their property to whom they choose, or to marry those they love? I had no idea! This discrimination must be stopped immediately! It's outrageous.
I've been told point blank in a job interview that I wasn't going to be hired because I was disabled, but that if I said anything to anyone outside of the interview they'd deny it. How is that not discrimination? I've known of cases where Child Protective Services was going to remove children from a home, not because they child was being neglected or abuse, but because the social worker didn't think a disabled person could be a good parent. Don't even think of telling me disabled people aren't discriminated against.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Rather like the idea that women should have the right to vote, that black people should be free to go to the same schools as white people and have the same pay as white people, etc.
Those things didn't require any new facilities to be built (and therefore funded), just that what already existed be made available to everyone. To put it crudely: giving women the vote didn't mean every polling station suddenly had to make sure it had step-free access, someone on hand who could sign, braille signage and so forth. These things all cost money, whereas not caring about the gender/race of anyone who comes through the door costs nothing.
If my tax dollars are going towards those public facilities I think they should be accessible so I can use them. Don't you? Not to mention, tax monies have been spent to make voting places/booths accessible.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Get the Guv'mint to spend more money obviously. That's always the answer. And to do that you have to lobby. And to lobby successfully you need a catchy slogan…
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
It really isn't all about money. Awareness goes a long, long way. Awareness that people who can't talk are often still able to think and reason. Awareness that one shouldn't assume that a person with a learning disability won't be interested in voting. Awareness of the importance of informing people of their choices, and using communication that they can understand. Awareness that just because someone has, say, Down Syndrome, that doesn't automatically mean they don't have the capacity to love someone in a sexual way.
There are so many cases where the money is there and the awareness isn't.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Rather like the idea that women should have the right to vote, that black people should be free to go to the same schools as white people and have the same pay as white people, etc.
Those things didn't require any new facilities to be built (and therefore funded), just that what already existed be made available to everyone. To put it crudely: giving women the vote didn't mean every polling station suddenly had to make sure it had step-free access, someone on hand who could sign, braille signage and so forth. These things all cost money, whereas not caring about the gender/race of anyone who comes through the door costs nothing.
It's not quite as simple as that. If double the amount of people are voting, you either need double the amount of staff, or the staff need to work double the hours. If black people are given the same pay as white people, then that pay has to come from somewhere. Giving people equal rights where they didn't have them before generally ends up costing money.
But why is money seen as the big deal here? In my experience, people more happily part with their money than change their attitudes. Money is external to you, whereas your attitudes are part of who you are.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I think it must be fear that makes people opposed to the concept of 'temporarily abled' and builds up the 'them and us' attitudes. The people who've accepted it as a term are not scared by it.
'Temporarily abled' is the first term to actually bridge the distance between 'them' and 'us'.
I understand everything you're saying, Fineline, I'm just not at all sure the term is having the effect you think it is. Are non-disabled really hearing "temporarily abled" and feeling afraid? Are they moved to greater empathy by it? Maybe many are, but I think quite a few people may hear it as a muttered threat. It sounds a bit like ill-wishing to me. Sort of like the person who can't walk is saying, "Sure you're strutting around carelessly now but you just might get hit by a truck tomorrow and then we'll see how much you wish you'd voted for the new wheel chair ramp, you temporarily abled moron."
I was wheelchair confined for about six months a few years ago and then with a walker for more months and I was appalled at the number of places in town that were inaccessible. There's nothing like seeing something from the other persons view point to increase awareness but the "This could be you!" sound of temporarily abled doesn't do a thing to close the them vs us distance to my ears.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I understand everything you're saying, Fineline, I'm just not at all sure the term is having the effect you think it is. Are non-disabled really hearing "temporarily abled" and feeling afraid? Are they moved to greater empathy by it? Maybe many are, but I think quite a few people may hear it as a muttered threat. It sounds a bit like ill-wishing to me. Sort of like the person who can't walk is saying, "Sure you're strutting around carelessly now but you just might get hit by a truck tomorrow and then we'll see how much you wish you'd voted for the new wheel chair ramp, you temporarily abled moron."
Well, I wasn't actually thinking that it was having the effect of scaring people or moving them to greater empathy. Others were saying it was scaring people, and I was disagreeing. I see it more as a simple statement, with no particular emotional appeal, but just presenting a perspective that some might not have thought about - that there is not such a great difference between able bodied and disabled people. That anyone can become disabled. Actual empathy comes from experiencing something oneself, as you say.
It never even occurred to me to see it as a threat. I've never interpreted it that way. But I tend to take things at face value, rather than reading emotional things into them. And as a statement of fact, 'temporarily able bodied' seems accurate to me. But I understand that people are different and different people interpret things differently, so I can accept that some may interpret it that way.
I would question whether that was intended though - the message of disability activists tends to be that it's not a dreadful thing to have a disability. You adapt, you become organised at working round it. You want respect, to be treated like an equal - not pity. A lot of disability activists talk about the idea that society is what disables people - that people's attitudes disable people more than their disability does. So if people are horrified at the idea of becoming disabled, this is not surely not what most disabled activists want - it increases the 'them and us' divide.
If it were possible that a person could become gay overnight, you can imagine that the gay activists would draw people's attention to this possibility. Not as a threat, as if this were the most dreadful thing that could happen to someone - but as a way of getting people to realise that they are not so different. That this could happen to anyone. As it is, they sometimes draw people's attention to the fact that straight people can have gay children - not as a threat (because that would mean having gay children were the most dreadful thing ever) but as a reality check for people who have a 'them and us' attitude to gay people.
When I worked in mental health, attention was often drawn to the fact that anyone could become mentally ill - that, for instance, a woman who has never been mentally ill can have a baby and then get post-natal psychosis. That it's possible for anyone. This wasn't said to scare people - it was to stop the stigma. To make people realise we are all the same - that anyone can become mentally ill.
Perhaps if people are reading the mention of the possibility of anyone becoming disabled as a terrible threat, this says more about their attitude than about the people saying it.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
I think too that a lot of people felt threatened when women started fighting for women's rights, and when gay people started advocating for gay rights. That some people feel threatened is perhaps something to be expected. Hopefully this will lessen as time goes on, and people's attitudes change.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I would question whether that was intended though - the message of disability activists tends to be that it's not a dreadful thing to have a disability. You adapt, you become organised at working round it. You want respect, to be treated like an equal - not pity. A lot of disability activists talk about the idea that society is what disables people - that people's attitudes disable people more than their disability does. So if people are horrified at the idea of becoming disabled, this is not surely not what most disabled activists want - it increases the 'them and us' divide.
This is the absolute truth.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I would question whether that was intended though - the message of disability activists tends to be that it's not a dreadful thing to have a disability.
Perhaps if people are reading the mention of the possibility of anyone becoming disabled as a terrible threat, this says more about their attitude than about the people saying it.
Oh I agree. I'm just pointing out that for a segment of the population the phrase may be having the opposite effect of what was originally intended and that may have to do with other conversations that are currently going on around us. Sine was not the only one who was reminded of the abortion debate and how embryos suddenly became babies for one side of the argument. "Temporarily abled," also makes me think of the "check your privilege" conversation going on in Purg right now. How these sorts of phrases are spoken is as varied as how they are received. One person's gentle reminder may sound like an angry accusation coming from another. It even says something about the (not-disabled or white) person who is sure that the message is meant for everyone else but certainly not needed in their own case.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm just pointing out that for a segment of the population the phrase may be having the opposite effect of what was originally intended and that may have to do with other conversations that are currently going on around us.
Yes. I agree that different people can interpret the same words very differently. And that context plays an important part in people's interpretations. And that the same words can be spoken very differently. Communication is complex, and easily breaks down, because we are all so different. And yet we all still attempt to communicate, and take the risk of being misunderstood, in the hopes of being understood. I like to think it's worth it - that despite some people disliking certain phrases, the phrases are still having a positive impact and making a positive change, albeit slow, in society's attitudes. I know there have been campaigns and slogans I've hated, and thought totally futile and ineffective, but then I've heard other people say the campaigns really changed their attitude and challenged their prejudices.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
