please look at this picture junji ito drew of his moms crusty white dog
it's very clear from some communists' visions of future city-planning that they expect disabled people to just shut up and die, lmao
- some disabled people need door-to-door transportation. public transportation will never work for everyone, no matter how much you emphasise that it is "accessible" to some
- if any part of your plan involves disabled people needing to "request" exceptions or "prove" that they are an exception or be questioned or tested or navigate any level of bureaucracy to become a Certified Exception, some people are going to be denied things they need & some of them are going to die
If you don’t mind me adding:
3. Some folks dream of the perfect commune where everyone contributes - specifically with labor. If a disabled person not contributing labor isn’t welcome in your community, you are just repackaging the capitalist “labor = worth” mindset
I also get this from climate activists who are heavily focused on eliminating cars, including electric cars with no emissions. I have been wildly attacked for simply pointing out that for some of us, our cars are mobility devices that are critical to our ability to participate in the world.
They love to share concept drawings of imagined high density communities, high rise buildings ringed with walking paths, retail and businesses on the lower floors and apartments above. They also love sharing photos of existing places, usually in Europe, where streets have been closed to vehicle traffic, and turned into pedestrian walkways, or green spaces.
There is never anyone in those images who is noticeably disabled. There aren’t even elderly people with canes.
They declare these spaces to be future that we should all want.
The message is being sent loud and clear.
Not arguing with the point being made here, I completely agree, but I do want to set one thing straight: I live in Europe, and I've been to many streets that are closed to vehicle traffic, and I see visibly disabled people and people with walking aids in those places all the time. Always have. I've walked around those places with someone who uses a cane. Just because they aren't in whatever photo you saw doesn't mean they don't exist.
It's not a climate thing. Pedestrian-only streets are necessary in towns that were built before cars. They are usually the main shopping street(s), where having cars drive through is dangerous in more than one way - especially for disabled people and children. The streets and footpaths are too narrow for the level of traffic we have now. If you let cars through there, you'd make the main shopping street inaccessible or at least super dangerous for elderly ladies with walking aids, people in wheelchairs, people with babies in buggies, etc. Not ideal. Pedestrianised places are accessible for those people, the important thing is making sure they can get there. Which, in those photos, you probably also aren't seeing the car parks that are usually right next to those streets, often underground.
I think maybe this is a case of people trying to apply a European solution 1:1 to the US, and you can't. First of all, you don't even have the same problem. Pedestrian-only streets in a German town are imo more comparable to a US shopping mall. You don't drive around inside those, either, right? Even if you are disabled, you leave the car outside. Same thing here.
Also: the European problem is that medieval towns weren't built for cars. The streets are tiny. So you have to adapt them, using one-way systems and pedestrian zones. They don't just close a street, they plan this out to make sure everything's still accessible. You can still drive around it, park next to it, get there by bus, etc. It's a matter of adapting a medieval town to modern needs, including the needs of elderly and disabled people.
Anyone sharing this as some kind of climate-conscious car-banning thing doesn't know what they're talking about.
@iverna listen, I don’t have the answers for how to adapt 100% of areas for 100% of people and suspect that that’s not necessarily feasible (certainly in the short-term), but I will say that you are completely ignorant of the range of ways in which human beings can be disabled.
it’s an unfortunate aspect of the fact that “disabled” can mean such a huge range of things that a lot people will have frankly irrelevant responses, such as this one, to criticisms of inaccessibility—as though there is only one way to be disabled, such that if some physically disabled people can access something, then that means that all physically disabled people can access it.
the physically disabled people that you see out and about are the ones who have a relatively large amount of mobility. this is what allows them to be out and about on the kinds of streets you’re describing. the people who have less mobility, who are ‘more’ disabled, who need completely level ground to walk even with a mobility aid or to move their wheelchairs over, who are bedridden, these are the people you are not seeing, because they are not able to navigate these kinds of streets. they are largely isolated, at home and ignored.
I can’t emphasise enough how incredibly—ignorant, as I’ve said, but also disrespectful and just plain cruel—it is to say things like “what do you mean this is inaccessible? I’ve seen [SOME] disabled people use it.” this is to use some disabled people as bludgeons with which to discredit and dismiss other disabled people. I hope that you learn from this and don’t say something like this to anyone else.
I've been rolling something around in my head.
If everyone receives Minimum Basic Income, what happens to all the relationships where one of the individuals no longer has to depend on the other(s) to survive?
Just let that marinate for a moment.
Not just the economic landscape but the social landscape could be transformed.
Not for nothing, but this is literally part of the entire point of Universal Basic Income.
When abused people can just literally walk away, knowing they can still have enough money to live, the world will be a lot less sheltering of abusers and that is a massive fucking benefit.
It gets better than that, if we go with my ideal UBI scenario, in which we peg UBI to "enough to live in any major metropolitan city in the country" and do NOT adjust it for cost of living.
Suddenly, the poverty and scrabbling for survival of rural areas? Gone. That UBI will go a whole long fucking way out there. Suddenly, people who had to move to the cities to get jobs that paid enough? Can afford to move back. Heck, they can afford to get decent fucking broadband out there and continue working, just, not in the city. Suddenly, people who live in rural areas but want to move to the cities with like-minded people? That's affordable, too. Suddenly, people who want to have a bigger house, but are stuck in a tiny apartment in a city? They can afford to move out to where there are bigger houses.
Universal Basic Income would realign our whole damn society, and I think it would long-term be for the better.
[ ID: tweet by athelind: "Basic Income is not a 'solution' to the 'problem' of automation. It is the FULLFILLMENT of the PROMISE of automation." /ID ]
UBI would not only give abused people the freedom to leave bad situations and end hunger and homelessness, it would force corporations to pay reasonable wages to attract people to work crap jobs, which the corpos could then deduct from their (higher, to pay for UBI) taxes, creating a positive feedback loop that encourages better pay
many would use UBI to quit abusive jobs and find better jobs even if they pay less, because their costs of living are paid for
many would start small businesses, do crafts and handiwork, create art and media, increase their education and health (physical and mental), dive into science and research, and so forth. we'd see a boom in innovation and invention, and the world would become a better place for most folks
so, to appease conservatives: the economic argument is that the economy would grow a great deal. some tests that show it works in the real world:
heck, Ireland is already testing UBI for artists, and wants to implement it widely:
lots more info on Wikipedia:
the only argument against UBI comes from those who'd pay greater taxes - big corporations and the ultra-rich - but they'd do fine, because now there'd be more consumers of their products and services. and if they're not providing anything to society that would benefit from others doing better, well, they don't deserve to benefit from society
there's literally no reason to not implement UBI
Yesterday I said that bookmobiles are an instant reblog. Today, I learned that rule also applies to book donkeys.
BIBLIOBURRO
i think it’s really important that everyone knows that this man (Luis Soriano) has his own children’s books
and the donkeys are called Alfa and Beto, by the way. if you even care
of course you have blood all over you. and pronouns
easy website
^^^ me when I’m trying to calm down my horse named “Website”
weird horse
"Websight" is a Valid Warrior Cat Name!
train wreck of a post. hit reblog
[ID 1: a gold-colored metal tag (for an animal) with the name "website". /I'd End]
[ID 2: an orange cat wearing it. /ID end]
This will be amazing, though!
Just think about it:
We are in the era after it caused SO MUCH, and caused so many sites to put in blocks and other restrictions to stop it from scraping everything
If they are forced to wipe their entire dataset then they won't be able to get even a fraction of it back!
Not only that, but they would be forced to get permission of the owners for everything they use. Which would IMO, actually kill most of the issues with AI and actually make the technology into something actually useful.
I think the bicycle helmet discourse really just reinforces the idea that people believe that accidents only happen to the stupid and careless, and that people who get hurt somehow deserve it. And since nobody wants to believe themselves to be stupid, or thinks they could be careless or distracted, it's not necessary to take precautions.
And then they take safety advice as an insult because telling someone to be safe is seen as an accusation of being stupid and irresponsible, and not just a value neutral acknowledgement of statistical inevitably. We see it with masks, and seatbelts, and now bicycle helmets because everyone wants to believe they're too clever to get hurt, and too lucky to get hurt badly, until suddenly you're not and you have to resign, in shame, to being one of the people you previously saw as annoying nags, assuming you're even still alive.
Kind of a Reddit AITA post but sometimes it is a little funny to fuck with people in ways that deliberately conform to a stereotype of what they must think of you. the other day I was talking to my friend and I randomly said that I wanted a pet chimpanzee. I'd dress it in person clothes (dungarees and hats) and I'd teach it to love science fiction. And this girl nearby was like "you know how dangerous those things are, right? Also how unethical it is to keep an ape as your pet for your own amusement" and I was already seeing where the conversation was going so I was pretending ignorance like "yea but it wouldn't just be for my amusement. It would have practical points too." And she ignored that statement entirely to say "Well chimpanzees can rip faces off" and I was like. What's the most frustrating thing I can say now. Finally settled on "Mine wouldn't do that though." and you could tell she wanted to hurt me very very badly. Like a chimpanzee would if I had one as a pet
this is so upsetting, PLEASE rb to spread awareness
omniscient-omniromantic-deactiv
PLEASE, PLEASE REBLOG THIS, WHETHER YOURE JEWISH OR NOT.
THIS IS A SUPER IMPORTANT PART OF OUR HISTORY, DONT LET IT GET DESTROYED.
perhaps help take steps to stop them now from future attempts...
"unfortunately I like men" What do you mean unfortunately?? Have you seen men?! I'm lucky to like men!! I love that I love men!! There's so much fortune to be had in being attracted to men!!
communion wafers are not cruelty free. they fucked that boy upppp