Daily Dose of Ableism

Smoovie · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:56 pm

Previously: I began hanging out on the NationStates mock-UN forum.

Somebody has written and passed a resolution banning persons "unable to understand the potential consequences of their actions" or "unable to distinguish between real and imaginary events. I support such a law on the imaginary national scale. though not fake-international.

EXCEPT. Because people have no clue of what they're talking about, the debate has been about not allowing anyone "insane" to have guns. In spite of my repeated insistence that there is no correlation whatsoever between mental illness and violent crime (with backing evidence,) and that the resolution's terms only apply to people currently experiencing vivid hallucinations or persons with developmental disabilities, people are STILL conflating mental illness and violence. "If you think that the insane should have weapons in your nation, then there is something wrong with your government." HRGJJRHGJHGRJGRRJHRJHJAAAAAAAGH

So, because I am sounding like a broken record over there, I am complaining here.

Isabel Knight · **Posted:** Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:42 am

As a bona-fide insane weapon haver, I would just like to say the following to the NationStates forum: BOOGABOOGABOOGA! Also, screw your ableist generalizations and stereotypes. That is all.

Seriously though, that sounds intensely aggravating.

Smoovie · **Posted:** Tue May 10, 2011 4:37 pm

As though her co-optation of a real issue in Internet Social Justice to blame WOC for not being part of the Feminist In-Crowd were not plenty of Filipovic Fail,

http://jillfilipovic.tumblr.com/post/53 ... k-a-spider

Now, I can actually get behind the basic premise that while common triggers, such as rape, violence, self-harm, diet talk, etc., merit a warning, I am not entitled to a trigger warning* on pictures of very fat ugly women, even though I have been abused by one. There aren't that many people who share that same trigger, and "*TRIGGER WARNING* This is what I look like!" would easily sound like body-shaming. I get that.

But is there any *less* diplomatic way she could have phrased that point? She's basically mocking people for not wanting to be surprised with a flashback. Wanting to avoid anxiety (when that anxiety is not directly keeping one safe) is a pretty damn rational desire. Some people are unrealistic about what kinds of accommodation they are entitled to, is all.

*I do think that when someone is writing for a fairly small audience, it's reasonable (but not obligatory) for them to warn for some more outlandish triggers. It's when someone has a larger audience that attempting to do so results in almost *all* content meriting a trigger warning.

Eirwyn · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:09 pm

http://trans-friedfluff.blogspot.com/20 ... chive.html I can't believe this bullshit. This is what happens when you mistake accountability with blame. A person can have DID and ALSO be a criminal.

A criminal can lie about having DID and that would not invalidate the existence of either criminals who also have DID, and presumably innocent people with DID. If your drive is to just see people who commit crimes be punished, then you're bound to end up confusing every criminal who stands out with every person who also stands out in the same way.

LOGIC PUZZLE(?): A criminal wears a red hat. The year is 2050 and for some reason no one wears the color red or hats anymore. The criminal lies and tries to get a lighter sentence, is caught out on hir lies, and put in prison. Two years later, teenagers start wearing red hats. Are teenagers in red hats criminals?(???) Do red hats cause crime? Are red hats innocent? What about people who wear red sweaters? IT IS ALL SO CONFUSING, ISN'T IT? Now back to the article: A criminal claims to have DID in order to get a lighter sentence. The author's conclusion: DID doesn't exist. WELL DONE, SHERLOCK.

Prism · **Joined:** Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:06 pm **Posts:** 61

D:

... I am multiple. And also not a criminal!

okay maybe I jaywalk sometimes.

But I exist.

Eirwyn · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:37 pm

Reading the stuff on the sidebar to the left there, I can only think that this person is completely fucking horrible. Those arguments showcased as "bullshit" are GOOD arguments, they're just a bit hard to understand.

Princess_Backpack · **Joined:** Fri May 28, 2010 1:39 am **Posts:** 99

ooooh heavens, anti-multiplicity nonsense? :C
PB SMASH ANTI-MULTIPLICITY CLAPTRAP D:<

long cathartic rant that only says stuff that everyone here maybe already knows:

Spoiler: show

Smoovie · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:47 pm

Philosophy and not being an asshole both become really really easy when one accepts thought and emotion as fact. :V

i mean really what the hell does this person think they would lose by being less awful to multiples I don't even

Prism · **Joined:** Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:06 pm **Posts:** 61

Princess_Backpack wrote:

*DISCLAIMER: Hopefully nothing in the above post implied being plural was inherently maladaptive, or a disability, or whatever! Because I certainly don't think so :O

Thank you for that.

I always say I am multiple instead of "have DID" cuz in my (/our) case I don't think of it as a disorder/disability. It is different for everyone but for the most part we have learned to work together well enough that it is just kind of a facet of life and not in a negative way. Our brain works differently, that's all.

Eirwyn · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:51 pm

I really, really like your post, PB. :3 I mean, I'm not plural, but I still feel the validation of being neuroatypical, the validation of emotions and life experiences, too.

Fugitivus Discussion Forum

Daily Dose of Ableism

Who is online