From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon SJ.svg

This Social justice related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

"can't help but be a bit disturbed upon encountering a drive-thru ATM with braille"[edit]

Um, I might be missing something, but why would that be disturbing? (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The implication that someone blind enough to need to read using braille is driving a motor vehicle? --transResident Transformers fanform! 03:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The drivers aren't always the only people in a car. Heck, these days there's even cars that don't need drivers at all. (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Self driving cars aren't all that common yet and won't be for a while. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Very true, but I'd say the broader phenomenon of passengers in cars is rather common. Additionally, I also think just walking up to such an ATM without the use of a vehicle is unlikely to stop the machine from functioning. (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
TBH I can't see a person who needs to use braille walking to an atm designed around you being in a car to use it :P . or reaching out from the passenger seat of a car to use it, but eh, more braille is always better. Atleast it isn't like at my university where many phones have a short list of numbers next to them that have braille for the numbers but not what they call. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
What if they were the passenger in a mail truck, and so didn't actually have to reach any further than the driver in an ordinary vehicle? WalkerWalkerWalker 07:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
As the person who added it I can confirm that it was a bit of observational humor, as AutoFire noticed, that I borrowed from Penn and Teller. And lest you think these things don't happen, I give you this as a fairly hilarious example (it's old, but it was more hilarious than some more recent ones). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Wait, do mail trucks have passenger seats even... WalkerWalkerWalker 03:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Justifying 'ableism'[edit]

What about those cases where 'absence of certain medical defects' (eg colourblindness) is a necessity? Anna Livia (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Blade of northern lights is wrong[edit]

The origin of something coming from a disability, and the term simultaneously being used as an insult isn't the same as all those other cases of the exact same thing because "wikipedia". You're gonna have to present a less inane case than that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to read the underlying sources, I'll leave a couple here. UPenn, more UPenn, and the Tiger Woods comments which meant nothing to Americans but freaked out British golf fans. Plus I'm sure you know of the etymological fallacy, words can rather dramatically shift away from their original intent (does anyone get offended at Irish twins anymore?); like, say, what happened to this word. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Can, but they're fucking not. It's the exact same shit as "retard". Literally the same behavior. I do not grasp why you're so committed to this. You're just wrong. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I am unimpressed by Blade of northern lights ideas here, tbf. Definitely leaning towards ikanreeds version. — Dysk (contribs) 15:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like TBotNL hasn't caught on that the "ableist language" deal is about finding controversy where mostly none exists. I'm actually pretty anti-ableist language overall, but there comes a point where the response gets so disproportionate it's just embarrassing. Ranting about the etymology of "spaz" and "lame" won't make anyone take you seriously. It might scare off some folk from taking ableism seriously though. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like you're ranting about those things, and I'm just taking out an extraneous and untrue statement. Sorry we're not "politically correct" enough to adhere to your vision of language. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're so sensitive. I'm more a Lenny Bruce sort myself, and that you simply deny that which I've laid out right before your face shows this isn't worth engaging further. I won't, dare I say, spaz out over it. No idea what the BON is going on about. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Lighten up. You just made a bad edit, with poor justification. I have never ever actually objected to the term, just the shitty reasoning of your parenthetical. It makes no goddamn sense. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Projection much? It's not that big a deal to me, just an observation; it's not an offensive term in American English, but you don't see it as necessary to say as much. Not worth getting my knickers in a twist and going full potty mouth over policing other people's language. I added something unrelated too, incidentally. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And it's wrong for the reasons I described, which you never addressed, frankly because you're being a dumbass. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

You gave one reason, which we disagree on. Have fun talking to yourself after this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Alright. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably need to go a bit more about mistreating people with physical deformities[edit]

For instance, Melissa Blake's physical appearance has been used for laughing and demonizing her to children via TikTok challenge. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Now this is absolutely ridiculous. None of the changes and clarifications I've recently made to the Ableism article have violated any RationalWiki policies, and they are consistent with the sources being presented. A personal pet peeve of "excessive wordiness" and undue cherrypicking of a specific segment for ridicule is not a legitimate basis for deleting such large swathes of content and inciting needless edit wars over such a petty issue. Works on RationalWiki can be edited and modified by any user as long as no vandalism or crankery is being inserted, and @Christopher's ridiculous edit warring is a borderline case of article ownership and elitism. Scientologism is Bullshit (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I never said they violated RW policy, I said they were pointless. All you did was repeat things that have already been said and clarify things that were already obvious, I don’t know why you’re so attached to the edits. What did they add to the article? Christopher (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
We don't revert edits based on personal opinion though, Chris. If we did, then I could rollback every single one of your recent contributions out of a excuse I can cook up, but I won't, because doing such an act would only destroy this community and ruin RationalWiki. As for the purpose of these additions and changes, it was supposed to add further clarity and detail to certain sections and explain the true nature of organizations such as Autism Speaks et al (Them being an anti-Autistic hate group, for example), because while they may seem obvious to anyone who is familiar with the subject of autism and ableism, not everyone is an expert on the subject, especially readers who are new to RationalWiki and know nothing about disabilities asides from a rudimentary level of facts, and the "bleach" segment that you've cherrypicked and tried to beat me over the head with is just the tip of the iceberg.
In short, these edits are supposed to improve the quality of the prose, and give a better explanation of the issues at hand, along with fixing some old typos and grammar errors here and there. They pose no harm to a reader's experience, and so I don't see any legitimate reason that justifies your edit warring at all, especially as so far no one except for you has voiced any objections to including the content, and yours are unfortunately of dubious merit. Scientologism is Bullshit (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Autism speaks is another example, the article already says autism speaks is a group which demonises autistic people, we don’t need to spell everything out. Adding 3000 characters of unnecessary waffle doesn’t pose much harm to a reader’s experience, but it does pose some harm. The only part of the edit which changed the actual content of the article was “communism” to “stalinsim”, I wouldn’t object to that being added back in but everything else is just a waste of space. Christopher (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As someone else on the spectrum, I can sympathize with the emotionally-rooted perspective. However, I think the disputed change overcooks the text with emotionally-rooted emphasis. There's a difference between subjective clarity (emotionally spelling things out from a perspective) and objective clarity (quantity, accuracy, and precision of information). I think "Scientologism is Bullshit" seems too emotionally invested to tell the two apart at this time. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I did see a little new information in the change, about electric shocks in the paragraph about the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, which could also be worth re-doing, it was tangled up in emotional hyperbole too. But I think "Scientologism is Bullshit" basically did it right in the recent edit to the JREC page (the only thing that's excessive there is calling it a concentration camp). --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I read this time the edit that it's been warred and SiB is just making the article more wordy. No substance's being added. GeeJayK (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
It’s ridiculous. I can understand an edit war over something that radically alters an article’s POV, but not someone feeling this much of a need to defend 3000 characters of absolutely nothing. The net result of 26 edits (probably more by tomorrow) is three capitalisation changes. Christopher (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I mean it does help with purposes of clarification. Oxyaena Harass 22:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Name one thing it clarifies that isn’t already clear, and then add it back in separately. Don’t just blindly revert to the revision that contains the phrase “bleach, a substance that often causes severe damage and even death upon ingestion”. Christopher (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's pretty clear the proposed revision is a poor attempt at polemic. My favourite bit is where they get so carried away they actually start embellishing the direct quote prefacing the Abuse in therapy and education subsection:

  • Original quote (ref. 22): Imagine if someone punished you whenever you cried when you were hurt or sad. Imagine if someone took away things in your life that made you feel better when you were hurt and uncomfortable and overwhelmed.
  • Revision: Imagine if someone relentlessly punished you whenever you cried, whenever you were hurt, and whenever you were sad. Imagine if someone took away things in your life that made you feel better when you were hurt and uncomfortable and overwhelmed by society.

Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I just reverted @Scientologism is Bullshit, who reverted the revert again claiming that @Christopher's side of the discussion was the outvoted side. So far, it's:
  • For SiB's version: Scientologism is Bullshit, Oxyaena
  • For the older version: Christopher, ApooftGnegiol, GeeJayK, Helena Bonham Carter
I'll add that I think this is important, because the intellectual standard shouldn't slip. There's a difference between rationality and rationalization. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
This has gone on long enough, it’s time for @Scientologism is Bullshit to accept that their version of the page is never going to stand. Christopher (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Brevity is important. We have {{main}} and as well as links to other articles for a reason. We have separate articles on Autism Speaks and eugenics that go into more detail. The point of an article that's about something as broad and complicated like ableism is to provide a general overview. I get being emotional, I'm autistic too. —ClickerClock💾 talk.txt 14:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
FYI we also have drafts! I haven't worked my Abortion and ableism draft in years. (Yes I am pro-choice.) —ClickerClock💾 talk.txt 15:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


in canada is literally 6th highest cause of death. guess who it is literally ifferedmostly and who tries to offer it ho parents if disabled children. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs