Let’s say I’m running a workshop to teach children to paint. Some children will be apprehensive about painting due to thinking they don’t have the ability or creativity to do so. To encourage them, I say “Everyone can learn to paint!”.
But uh oh, some people have severe learning disabilities and may not be able to learn to paint. Some people lack the ability to move any part of their body and can’t paint in a way that I would be equipped to teach them. Some people are comatose or otherwise completely non-responsive and obviously can’t paint.
What do I say instead? “Some people can paint!”? “Everyone except X, Y, Z can paint!”? Is that encouraging to anyone?
In your example, you can still say “everyone can learn to paint” because of accessibility options for those without arms or whatever.
“Everyone can run” is an objectively false statement that better illustrates the point this user is trying to make.
Not only is it easy to alter what you say to be more inclusive (of you’re not being an asshole about it), it also makes for better content.
Say I want to make a video about playing games on the Switch. “Anybody can play this game!” I might say. Then I can take a minute to discuss accessibility options for people who, say, only have use of one hand. “You can buy this modified Switch controller for a mere ten dollars online, which allows for one-handed play, and after some practice, is pretty easy to use!”
Better, more interesting content without being an exclusionary dickhole.
some people have severe learning disabilities and may not be able to learn to paint. Some people lack the ability to move any part of their body and can’t paint in a way that I would be equipped to teach them.
There is nothing stopping those people from painting other than your ableism and whatever hurdles you put in their way
and using
Some people are comatose or otherwise completely non-responsive and obviously can’t paint.
makes it clear that you’re not arguing in good faith.
Expecting someone to provide you with instructions for some exaugurated made up (and clearly facetious)
scenario you created in your head (aka a strawman) because you’re too lazy to even consider thinking for yourself and making the tiniest effort to include all the people you might be talking to if the relevant situation ever came up is pretty pathetic.
Expecting someone to provide you with instructions for some exaugurated made up (and clearly facetious)
scenario you created in your head (aka a strawman)
That wasn’t a strawman. Fartmaster used the same language as the original tweet and merely extrapolated it to a real-world application. And a very reasonable one, at that.
Your comment isn’t showing up on lemmy.world so I’ll respond to it here.
Do you honestly believe that it’s ableism for a random person trying to teach kids a creative outlet of painting to not be equipped to teach someone with a severe learning disability or someone who is completely paralyzed? They could have the best intentions in the world and still not have the experience, equipment, and additional resources to take something like that on. There are entire industries and academic programs specializing in both to teach those skills.
How is considering someone who is comatose or non-responsive not arguing in good faith? Because you’d rather pretend they don’t exist for the sake of your argument?
How is taking a hypothetical situation and trying to apply it to a real-world situation a strawman? I’m not misconstruing or misrepresenting the original position in any way, am I? I’m just thinking about it beyond a surface-level complaint to find an actual solution.
lol, ok so you also agree that there isn’t a viable alternative that conveys the same meaning and also acknowledges disabled people exist without being even more ableist or exclusive, thanks.
unless you really want to die on this hill and explain to me where I implied that disabled people aren’t people, or that it is “unnatural” for me to show them respect with the questions I’ve just asked.
or, you know, you could just actually make an attempt at answering them, since it’s such a simple problem to solve in your opinion.
How about consider what you say before you say it and if it isn’t something everyone can do simply don’t say “everyone can do this”?
Ok, so give me an alternative then.
Let’s say I’m running a workshop to teach children to paint. Some children will be apprehensive about painting due to thinking they don’t have the ability or creativity to do so. To encourage them, I say “Everyone can learn to paint!”.
But uh oh, some people have severe learning disabilities and may not be able to learn to paint. Some people lack the ability to move any part of their body and can’t paint in a way that I would be equipped to teach them. Some people are comatose or otherwise completely non-responsive and obviously can’t paint.
What do I say instead? “Some people can paint!”? “Everyone except X, Y, Z can paint!”? Is that encouraging to anyone?
In your example, you can still say “everyone can learn to paint” because of accessibility options for those without arms or whatever.
“Everyone can run” is an objectively false statement that better illustrates the point this user is trying to make.
Not only is it easy to alter what you say to be more inclusive (of you’re not being an asshole about it), it also makes for better content.
Say I want to make a video about playing games on the Switch. “Anybody can play this game!” I might say. Then I can take a minute to discuss accessibility options for people who, say, only have use of one hand. “You can buy this modified Switch controller for a mere ten dollars online, which allows for one-handed play, and after some practice, is pretty easy to use!”
Better, more interesting content without being an exclusionary dickhole.
There is nothing stopping those people from painting other than your ableism and whatever hurdles you put in their way
and using
makes it clear that you’re not arguing in good faith.
Expecting someone to provide you with instructions for some exaugurated made up (and clearly facetious)
scenario you created in your head (aka a strawman) because you’re too lazy to even consider thinking for yourself and making the tiniest effort to include all the people you might be talking to if the relevant situation ever came up is pretty pathetic.
That wasn’t a strawman. Fartmaster used the same language as the original tweet and merely extrapolated it to a real-world application. And a very reasonable one, at that.
Your comment isn’t showing up on lemmy.world so I’ll respond to it here.
Do you honestly believe that it’s ableism for a random person trying to teach kids a creative outlet of painting to not be equipped to teach someone with a severe learning disability or someone who is completely paralyzed? They could have the best intentions in the world and still not have the experience, equipment, and additional resources to take something like that on. There are entire industries and academic programs specializing in both to teach those skills.
How is considering someone who is comatose or non-responsive not arguing in good faith? Because you’d rather pretend they don’t exist for the sake of your argument?
How is taking a hypothetical situation and trying to apply it to a real-world situation a strawman? I’m not misconstruing or misrepresenting the original position in any way, am I? I’m just thinking about it beyond a surface-level complaint to find an actual solution.
Disabled people are just people and if considering us and treating us with minimal respect is so unnatural to you that’s definitely a you issue.
lol, ok so you also agree that there isn’t a viable alternative that conveys the same meaning and also acknowledges disabled people exist without being even more ableist or exclusive, thanks.
unless you really want to die on this hill and explain to me where I implied that disabled people aren’t people, or that it is “unnatural” for me to show them respect with the questions I’ve just asked.
or, you know, you could just actually make an attempt at answering them, since it’s such a simple problem to solve in your opinion.