One thing that's said a lot lately is the word "ableist".
I was thinking about what that word actually means.
If it's the same as racist or sexist, it's the idea that if you think people who are able to do things are better than people who aren't able to do things.
But....isn't that objectively true?
If I need to dig a hole with a shovel, and on the left I have a guy with no arms, and on the right I have a guy with two arms, guess who I will ask to dig the hole for me.
If I need to complete a math equation, and on the left I have a guy who has massive systemic brain damage and on the right I have a person with a perfectly healthy brain, guess who I will ask to do the math equation for me.
If I need someone to do customer service, and on the left I have someone in a persistent vegatative state and on the right I have a person who is in a perfectly healthy state, guess who I'm getting to man the till.
Hell, Stephen Hawking was totally paralyzed, he was never going to fight in UFC, but his remarkable brain was intact so he was able to contribute in the way in which he was healthy. He couldn't pretend he was physically healthy, everyone knew he couldn't move.
On the other hand, a person who was physically exceptionally healthy could engage in strenuous physical activity, but if they had an IQ of 25 then barring some really exceptional circumstances that person probably can't reasonably contribute to intellectual discussion.
Not to say that people who are not able to do something are obviously not lesser human beings, we're all human and there's basic respect we should give to individuals as members of the human race.
That being said, it is absurd to pretend that reality isn't reality. Sorry, but reality exists and it doesn't care what you think. If you think that words can magically make the legless walk, or magically make someone in a persistive vegetative state orate like Barack Obama then you're just being stupid.
I was thinking about what that word actually means.
If it's the same as racist or sexist, it's the idea that if you think people who are able to do things are better than people who aren't able to do things.
But....isn't that objectively true?
If I need to dig a hole with a shovel, and on the left I have a guy with no arms, and on the right I have a guy with two arms, guess who I will ask to dig the hole for me.
If I need to complete a math equation, and on the left I have a guy who has massive systemic brain damage and on the right I have a person with a perfectly healthy brain, guess who I will ask to do the math equation for me.
If I need someone to do customer service, and on the left I have someone in a persistent vegatative state and on the right I have a person who is in a perfectly healthy state, guess who I'm getting to man the till.
Hell, Stephen Hawking was totally paralyzed, he was never going to fight in UFC, but his remarkable brain was intact so he was able to contribute in the way in which he was healthy. He couldn't pretend he was physically healthy, everyone knew he couldn't move.
On the other hand, a person who was physically exceptionally healthy could engage in strenuous physical activity, but if they had an IQ of 25 then barring some really exceptional circumstances that person probably can't reasonably contribute to intellectual discussion.
Not to say that people who are not able to do something are obviously not lesser human beings, we're all human and there's basic respect we should give to individuals as members of the human race.
That being said, it is absurd to pretend that reality isn't reality. Sorry, but reality exists and it doesn't care what you think. If you think that words can magically make the legless walk, or magically make someone in a persistive vegetative state orate like Barack Obama then you're just being stupid.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0