No, he did not. I did not say he did. I did not say that I agreed with him, or his full post. I read his statement, saw a point of common ground, and expressed it.
I read posts before I reference or reply to them, and I maintain the mikecurtis brought up a point worth discussing, what does a society owe to its members, especially the “less fortunate” or less privileged?
Do you disagree that our infrastructure should be usable by people of different abilities, to the extent possible?
Or that ramps, curb cuts, braille, door handles, handicap stalls, and audible cross-walk signals are good things?
If you don’t, you have nothing to argue with me about. If you do, I have nothing to say to you.
No idea then why you’ve replied to my post where I pointed out exactly what he said that I found stupid beyond belief. If there’s bits of his post you agree with, reply to him.
Because you replied to me. But message boards are often general conversations among several people, not multiple conversations between two individuals.
If it is that important to you to get the last word, by all means, you can have it.
I thought you were smarter than this. I never said, “just like”. of course people with different conditions will have to do things differently from others, but their condition doesnt make them unable of accomplishing the same goals. Let’s take your paralysis, for example. You cant walk, so what? what does walking provide me that you cannot do? are you unable to move from place to place? You might not do it the same way that I do but you still can do it.
Let’s look at your juvenile little quip above. “you said a blind man can drive on the interstate, you must be a troll to assert such nonsense.” Well, I wouldn’t be able to drive on the interstate, either, without hundreds of years of vision centric automotive technology. I am unable to do it without a car (does that make me disabled?) I say vision centric because the makers of automobiles kindly put a large transparent screen in it to allow me to navigate using my eyes. And you have mentioned that you have a car and I assume can drive on the interstate. You would not be able to do that without some special adaptations to allow you to control the car without using your feet. Similarly, I suppose, a little imagination and innovation should be able to allow a blind person to drive. Oh, look! It’s already being done. Blind drivers at the steering wheel.
Being blind or deaf or paralyzed or whatever doesn’t disable someone from doing anything.
But, you know what? I’m not you and apparently you (and others) are so attached to to the label “disabled” that if I or anyone dare to suggest that you are able to do anything you set your mind to, we are somehow insulting you. I guess I had a higher opinion of yourself than you did. Fine, you wanna call yourself disabled, who am I to say otherwise. My apologies.
More or less. I think that inbreeding is a strong contributing factor to autism. This is not controversial, just painful to hear. I think this inbreeding is due, in part, to the fact that most white people are only attracted to other white people. This is likely exacerbated by the one-drop rule which discourages genetic diversity as well as current cultural mores which stigmatize interracial couplings. Now, you have a large swath of white folks who are on the spectrum. These are white folks who are resistant to change and lack cognitive empathy. This brings me to my personal, pet theory: white folks appear as monsters not because they are evil, but because most are born with a paucity of empathy and compassion. This is why white folks can say “Yes, she was sexually assaulted but she shouldn’t have waited so long to lodge her complaint” or “Diversity is not a strength” or “People of color have less intelligence than everyone” or to deliberately run over a black man (who was being a good Samaritan) with your vehicle and refer to his broken and bloodied dead body as “some nigger”. It’s a complete and utter lack of empathy and compassion that, in my view, has its roots in autism, selfishness, evilness, or a combination thereof. From slavery and the trail of tears to the separation of children from their parents, white folks show time and time again that they have no empathy. If you bring up slavery, we’re told that it’s OK because there were “African slavers” (no, really, this has been said); if you bring up the Trail of Tears, we’re told that it’s OK because of “historical relativism” (no, really, this has been said); if you bring up children being separated from their families, we’re told it’s OK because the it’s really a “day camp” (no, really, this has been said). If a white man who shoots up a school, an open-air concert, an elementary school, or a church, we’re told it’s OK because the dead, accused, or survivors are “crisis actors” or that the event “didn’t happen” (no, really, this has been said). The surety white folks have in their alternative facts are impenetrable. In the end, the high rates of autism in white families is the curse of white supremacy and whiteness. It also begs the question whether it is possible to have a vibrant, functioning democracy without compassion, empathy, or some degree of empathetic leadership. White folks desire to be sequestered and isolated from people of color is so strong, their attraction to white features so implacable, that white folks are willing to produce and rear a disabled white child rather than mate with a person of color and produce a neurotypical/normal child.
One more thing, white folks: Your children are more racist than you. Please know that. I know you’ll deny it and I know this pains you to hear, but it’s true. I feel safer with a self-absorbed, race-denying, Trump-voting baby boomer cop than I do with an angry, reddit-roaming, alcohol-drinking, incel-card carrying Millennial/GenXer cop. It goes to show you that you give a generation everything (literally, everything including the picket fence) and they can’t raise kids for shit.
Huey, most white people aren’t just attracted to other white people. That’s just not true.
And in my experience, “white” encompasses such a broad range of ethnicities that I don’t think genetic diversity is really an issue, but you and I might have different definitions of white.
Huey your premise is that inbred white folks have cognitive deficiencies due to genetics. Well that’s interesting and would get most folks labeled an evil racist with at least 48382 profane adjectives and maybe even an adverb mixed in. Can’t wait for Dibble to spin this.
I’m not sure which “rule of three” you mean. As for your “not as fucked up as” line, that is technically the fallacy of relative privation, but more importantly it runs afoul of an important principle I was raised with: “two wrongs don’t make a right”. This is an especially important principle when the second “wrong” is not even aimed at a specific person who caused the first “wrong”, but at all those who have similar DNA.
The Rule of Three (and I’m really surprised anyone is not familiar with it), simply put, is that whatever one does reverberates and comes back to one three fold. (Very simply put.) A fancier way of saying, “don’t be a jerk”, if you will.
When one belongs to a privileged or powerful group, one will be seen as complicit in the suffering caused by that group, kind of like how a person who belongs to a less privileged group one will be seen as less deserving of privilege, as lazy, non productive, and a likely criminal.
Both might be unfair, but the privileged are still better off, aren’t they? They also have better opportunities to educate themselves about inequities, and to practice charity and compassion.
So it really does not behoove the privileged to play the victim, does it?
Collective punishment, or punishing children for the crimes of their forebears, are evil. Period. And they are guaranteed to spark neverending Hatfield-McCoy tit-for-tat.
