Well, I’m not saying you’re a fucking idiot who’s digging in to defend a distinction without a difference, I’m just saying you might be perceived that way so I’m recommending a change.
You genuinely want me to believe that the committee’s point was “Well, this mission statement is totally fine, but some moronic Twitter warriors might misinterpret it as ableist or some dumb shit like that, so we should change it”?
I’ll be more clear. (my previous post edited for Babale’s sensibities)
There, its now VERY CLEAR that you are sad for the dems losing. The meat of my point that all this anti-woke bullshit is just right-wing moral panic and lies… untouched. Congrats to the “Useful Idiots” who self claim as Democrat but swallow this shit.
@Babale
Well that’s what they actually fucking said: “The current mission statement could be interpreted as perpetuating ableist beliefs”.
But anyway, don’t let me or them get in the way of you providing any evidence to support your claim, or acknowledging that you played dumb and misrepresented me as agreeing with you.
And if you want to keep pretending that they are dumbfounded by these interpretations that they totally disagree with, you’re welcome to continue bullshitting to someone else.
For those who aren’t lying sacks of shit who want to see what the report actually said (hint: a fuck of a lot more than “some might interpret this as ableist”), here is the full report:
Let’s review:
So you’ve been on a multi-post rant about how “people” have called the NIH ableist.
Except that the “people” concerned are the committee whose job it is to do advise on things like whether there is a possibility of particular statements being misconstrued. And those people didn’t call anyone ableist, they were explicitly talking about the possibility of the phrasing giving the wrong impression. A phrasing change that hasn’t happened apparently.
And the whole thing which kicked off this tangent was the suggestion by me and other that anti-woke stuff is almost always recreational outrage. What better illustration than you quadrupling down on this pathetic non-example? So, thanks, I guess.
Wrong!
They are talking about how reducing disability is a bad thing.
Not that it might give the wrong idea but that our goal should not be to reduce the portion of the population affected by disability.
This isn’t a fucking joke or a game. These attitudes are extremely important.
Alright, give me a quote or refer me to a page and/or paragraph. I will earnestly read and see if what you say checks out. Give me the direction.
I just want to read it, in the context that it exists, to judge if it matches your evaluations. Help me out here. No paraphrasing. I’ll read it.
Yeah, that doesn’t have any potentially concerning implications the way you worded it, none at all…
Yeah the report explains pretty well the distinction here; that not all disabled people are necessarily seeking to have their disability cured and would prefer not to be thought of as being in some kind of state of perpetual illness. That’s not the same thing as saying “reducing disability is a bad thing”.
You’re just leaving your digital farts to stink up another thread, and that’s what I’m not interested in.
Your argument isn’t worth a more thoughtful answer than pointing out that you’re just pushing curmudgeonly right wing talking points as Maher does.
My life is pretty great, thanks. 
As someone who studied ASL with activist members of my local Deaf community I must say that, yeah. This is a message I heard a lot.
I cannot fully articulate all the concerns (I’m not qualified), but a lot of people were forced to live a life where they were “set up to fail” by sacrificing important schooling for constant lip reading training, had to compromise the structural integrity of their skulls for experimental implantation, withheld from communicating in sign language with other Deaf folks to force integration in the hearing world…
After many years of trying really hard to survive living as a Deaf person in a hearing world, many start to wonder… why am I making all these life long sacrifices to “fit in”. The world should accommodate me too. I exist. I’m real. I deserve to fit in like anyone else who gets accommodations.
I can see how they would say: Just deal with me as I am. I’m Deaf. I will never hear. I cannot compete in this game of “who can hear the best in society” Just fit me in as Deaf.
Right. And while some of it, to be honest, can be difficult to relate to (e.g. some having no desire to have their disability corrected if the option came up*), I can understand most of the points about terminology.
Imagine if we conventionally called people who had some color-blindness “disabled”. That you were a “disabled person”, with the various social connotations of needing help. A lot of people would be pissed and would prefer that you say they have a disability, because they are able to live quite effectively and don’t like the social connotations, even if they accept that being color-blind is not the ideal.
Well, that’s all that is being said here.
* I mean, it’s their choice, I’m just saying it can be difficult to relate to. For me, if you could enhance any of my senses or physical abilities in any way, I’m sold. But understanding other people’s lived experience is always difficult.
I guess the important thing is that these people have concerns that should be aired and listened too. I might not be the audience, nor am I especially knowledgeable about their existence, but I’m pretty sure the concerns are from community members themselves and not outside woke people imposing their woke agenda (or whatever).
In fact, the only reason I am even aware is because their concerns are being mocked and used as a political cudgel (most likely out of context to make them feel less relatable).
Rahm Emmanuel tells Maher that he’s a pervert who would lie about his gender identity so he can watch girls pee.
‘Squidward’ Bill Maher, shaking his head until his rubber nose wiggles, while spouting, “Woke, woke, woke.”
HBO plays him twice and CNN plays him once… all at different times and all within 24 hours.
He’s full of crap, but they’re fooding the airwaves with his tired same old (wrong) sh-t.
FFS, did you actually watch the show? It started with a one-on-one with Christia Freeland, former Finance Minister and Deputy Prime MInister of Canada, and then a panel discussion with Rahm Emanuel (one “m”) and Fareed Zakaria about the turmoil in international relations created by Trumpism, health care, free speech and other issues. Somewhere in the mix – I can’t even find it now, it was about ten seconds out of an hour-long show – Emanuel talks about the importance of public education, and how the quality of teachers and classrooms is what’s important, not bathrooms and locker rooms.
But Maher haters gotta hate, and blame everything on Maher, even if it’s something somebody else said and was then taken out of context and mangled beyond recognition. 
Mocking woke policies and progressive gender language, he quipped, “Look, in seventh grade, if I had known that I could have said the word ‘They’ and got in the girls bathroom, I would have done it.”
Dear God, no. I’d rather have nails pounded into my eyes.
In which he tried to justify discriminating against trans people on the basis that he’s a pervert who wants to watch underage girls pee.
And you’re worried about how many M’s are in his last name?
Technically, he didn’t say he wants to see underage girls pee now. Just that when he was that age, he would have loved an excuse to see girls his same age show their non-dangly bits.
That’s not the same thing.
And yet you’re going to opine about something you haven’t seen, based on one clickbait scare quote.
Here’s the thing. Emanuel was only part of the show, his statement about Chicago schools was only a very tiny part of the many things he had to say, and even within that tiny part, the transgender reference was just a one-sentence quip that was in no way transphobic – it was a smartass quip to make the point that – here, let me use the AI summary that Fox News provided from the article cited in the post just prior to yours:
- Emanuel highlighted Chicago’s plummeting education standards and rising crime rates, emphasizing the need to focus on safe streets, strong schools, and stable finances.
- The ex-mayor also pointed out that Democratic-run cities, including Chicago, are facing significant challenges with high taxes, low educational standards, and poor governance.
I don’t like the implication that this is unique to “Democratic-run cities” because I think it’s true for most cities in the US, but do you otherwise have a problem with that assessment? I don’t. Do you see transphobia there? I don’t.
The one actual problem I have with Emanuel’s argument here isn’t about transphobia – that’s just ridiculous – it’s about false equivalency. The policies and programs that Chicago school boards have to promote a welcoming environment for LGBTQ students are very important, but they cost almost nothing. The costs and challenges of improving the quality of education are, comparatively, enormous. The first does not preclude the second. Chicago schools – and schools everywhere – should be doing both.