So long, and thanks for all the fish

[Shrapnel]

Well, I haven't been around for a long time, but I was recently clued in on Frank's temper tantrums from another user here, and since I am slightly high, it feels like the right time to make my own call out post on my GamingDen.com. Unlike Frank, I will not be coming back afterwards to call everyone here a sexual predator.

Now, I'm sure nobody actually noticed, but I left the Den. And, outside this final message, I'm not coming back unless something here changes: The abelism. This is an actual problem that this site actually has, and actually DOES contribute to a toxic atmosphere of hate. There are just too many fucking ableists... on the internet as a whole, but lets focus on this site for now.

The event that prompted me to leave was Count using the term "autistic" disparagingly in the Video Games thread. I am diagnosed with ASD, and I found this offensive as fuck, as I do any time a person says something ableist, and when I mentioned this to Count, he refused to admit he was wrong, because he is nothing more than a putrid pile of rejected afterbirth. Rather than get into a futile argument with a man who absolutely no moral center, soul, or brain, I left. Because he wasn't alone in using ableist insults adventurer's almanac. And this wasn't the only instance, it was just the one that broke the camel's back.

Ableism is exactly as bad as sexism or racism. This site doesn't tolerate people using racial or sexual slurs, so it shouldn't tolerate people using EVER terms like "retarded", or using "autistic" or "aspie" as an insult. And as long as people keep doing that, I'm never coming back. (Such a great loss, I know).

I honestly don't expect this to change. I just wanted people to know why I left and how I felt. If Count got banned, then maybe I'd come back? I'd like that to happen, because I honestly enjoyed being here, even if I was an idiot who never really understood what the hell purpose a D30 had. I like some of the people here, I enjoyed having a somewhat-like minded community of nerds to be a part of, and I loved reading the discussions on bad game design and the games that AH would run, even if I barely understood most of it. But, alas, it appears that it's not meant to be.

But before I go, and since I didn't say this before: I hate you, Count. You are thoroughly disgusting filth.


Bye.

Love,
shrapnel
1/6/2012 - 2/19/2020

[Sunwitch]

Endorsed. This sort of thing kept me from actually using this forum (rather than lurking) for a long time and I appreciate this being laid out here.

Be well. <3

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

I always wonder when people make a big fuss about leaving... where are they even going? Not that it's really my business, but it's a general thought I have, especially with the ongoing consolidation of the internet.

[Hicks]

Ableism is exactly as bad as sexism or racism. This site doesn't tolerate people using racial or sexual slurs, so it shouldn't tolerate people using EVER terms like "retarded", or using "autistic" or "aspie" as an insult.

I completely agree with this statement without qualification.

I wish you well, and I hope to welcome you back when the abelists either stop doing an abelism here or go away. You deserve to be welcomed.

[Leress]

Be well, Shrap and may your Transformers never lose their parts.

[Libertad]

Fellow autist here. We're sorry to see you go, and I hope that this community improves in regards to ableist slurs.

[Omegonthesane]

I had Count in my DMs whining when I pushed back against his use of ableist slurs in the face of people explaining how it made them uncomfortable. I thought he was gone and would stay gone for a while after that, and was dismayed when he returned none the better.

I don't blame you for bailing. If this forum survives, I hope it does so in a form you'd feel comfortable rejoining.

[DSMatticus]

I do think ableism is a categorically different beast than racism or sexism. Whereas racism and sexism directly attack the validity of an identity, ableism exploits the consequences a disability has for those who have it to hyperbolically insult the competence of people who don't (so far as you know, anyway) have that disability.

So whereas someone drops the n-word because they either already believe or are willing to indulge the notion that black people are subhuman, "how'd you miss that? What are you, blind?" isn't something you say because you think blind people are subhuman, it's a thing you say to make fun of a not-blind person's mistake by hyperbolically exaggerating the level of inability that someone would to need to make that mistake. Ableist slurs don't necessarily make value statements about the disabled the way racist and sexist slurs make value statements about race and sex.

Buuut here's the deal: if you drop "how'd you miss that? What are you, blind?" and there's a dude with a cane, sunglasses, and seeing eye dog around, the appropriate response is to feel like an asshole. It's not to double down. Whether you intended to or not, even if you weren't talking to that person and they just happened to be around, they were minding their own goddamn business when you came along and threw their disability in their face for no real reason. And so as a real fuckin' basic matter of "I would prefer not to casually hurt strangers" compassion, I've tried to work most ableist slurs out of my vocabulary. I haven't really decided if it's worth being worried about 'blind' or 'lame.' I don't think 'autist' ever really caught on with me, because I always associated it with the shitbaggiest of shitbags and 4chan edgelords and the like. I've definitely used 'retarded' as a synonym for 'stupid,' and I started trying to drop that sometime in the past few years without even really making the conscious decision, I think. It just made me increasingly comfortable and tapered off.

Anyway, all of this to say that I think while racist and sexist slurs are pretty much automatically disqualifying, ableist slurs can come from a place of casual "I hadn't really thought about it" that's worth attempting to correct before condemning. The use isn't instrinsically harmful, it's incidentally harmful - literally, harmful in the context of specific incidents. But causing those incidents still makes you an asshole, so why risk it? Just fucking don't. Problem solved. Hurting people by highly foreseeable accident is still hurting people.

But we're talking about Count, so... ¯\_(:/)_/¯

[Whatever]

I have a lot of people on ignore, and it's still hard to go back to old discussions and try to get anything useful out of them. Things may be better now, but not better enough.

DSM, strongly disagree. Ableism, fundamentally, is about erasure and contempt. Which is ironic, because most abled people will end up disabled at some point in their life.

Using someone's disability as an insult necessarily makes a value statement, and a bad one.

Consider the blind man in your example. He knows he's blind. It's not a secret, even if you may make a point of ignoring it. You're not throwing that in his face. What you're throwing in his face is your contempt for blind people.

Many disabilities are just different ways of thinking, of moving, of living. There are some (chronic pain especially) that are medically debilitating. But many wouldn't interfere with activities of daily living if we had a society that made even the most minor efforts to accommodate people outside the norm. That won't happen, though, as long as we hold on to the mindset that these disabilities make someone less than, other than, or, as you put it, subhuman.

[violence in the media]

Is it possible to not be ableist while still acknowledging that, given the option, I'd prefer to have the use of my legs (or eyes, or whatever) than not? Is it ableist to think that people with disabilities deserve dignity, respect, and accommodation but not buy into the idea that it's erasure if science and technology can figure out a way to repair or prevent an injury, congenital anomaly, or disease? Is it ableist to abort a fetus because it has Down's syndrome; or opt for a surgery to fix your child's cleft palate; or 3d print a prosthetic so they don't have to learn to live without a hand?

Like, where's the line between building wheelchair ramps and ensuring that nobody ever needs them again?

[Whatever]

This stuff gets pretty contentious pretty quickly, but let's run down the list.

Is it possible to not be ableist while still acknowledging that, given the option, I'd prefer to have the use of my legs (or eyes, or whatever) than not?

Sure, as long as you can acknowledge that the reverse may be true for others.

Is it ableist to think that people with disabilities deserve dignity, respect, and accommodation but not buy into the idea that it's erasure if science and technology can figure out a way to repair or prevent an injury, congenital anomaly, or disease?

As long as we're not forcing things on people, sure. And I recognize that this is an unsatisfactory answer.

Is it ableist to abort a fetus because it has Down's syndrome

Yes obviously, what the fuck.

or opt for a surgery to fix your child's cleft palate

That's probably fine.

or 3d print a prosthetic so they don't have to learn to live without a hand?

Again, if they want it, go for it. Some d/Deaf people embrace cochlear implants, others reject them. It's not our job to decide which accommodations or assistive devices would best serve someone else.

Like, where's the line between building wheelchair ramps and ensuring that nobody ever needs them again?

Even in a world without wheelchairs, we'd still have baby carriages and shopping carts and bicycles and more. Accessibility is good for everyone.

And it's honestly kinda gross to fantasize about a future where any category of people no longer exists.

[saithorthepyro]

Goodbye Shrapnel, hopefully some day this forum is in a state where you'll come back.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Goodbye, Shrapnel! I enjoyed reading your posts while you were here, and I hope you find some nicer/less creepy communities in the future.

[maglag]

or 3d print a prosthetic so they don't have to learn to live without a hand?

Again, if they want it, go for it. Some d/Deaf people embrace cochlear implants, others reject them. It's not our job to decide which accommodations or assistive devices would best serve someone else.

Some people decided that they don't want/need to wear masks against COVID-19, and thanks to that we have an ongoing global pandemic with no end in sight.

[Omegonthesane]

maglag: that is a bullshit false comparison and you know it. Masks aren't to protect yourself, they're a fucking public safety measure, it's abhorrent to compare having agency over your own mobility aids with rejecting a public health measure.

[Whatever]

maglag: that is a bullshit false comparison and you know it. Masks aren't to protect yourself, they're a fucking public safety measure, it's abhorrent to compare having agency over your own mobility aids with rejecting a public health measure.

Exactly this.

But also, blaming the entire pandemic on individual choices instead of harmful leadership plays into some very deliberately malicious narratives about personal responsibility. I can't say more without turning this into a political discussion, though.

[violence in the media]

This stuff gets pretty contentious pretty quickly, but let's run down the list.

Is it possible to not be ableist while still acknowledging that, given the option, I'd prefer to have the use of my legs (or eyes, or whatever) than not?

Sure, as long as you can acknowledge that the reverse may be true for others.

Is it ableist to think that people with disabilities deserve dignity, respect, and accommodation but not buy into the idea that it's erasure if science and technology can figure out a way to repair or prevent an injury, congenital anomaly, or disease?

As long as we're not forcing things on people, sure. And I recognize that this is an unsatisfactory answer.

Is it ableist to abort a fetus because it has Down's syndrome

Yes obviously, what the fuck.

or opt for a surgery to fix your child's cleft palate

That's probably fine.

or 3d print a prosthetic so they don't have to learn to live without a hand?

Again, if they want it, go for it. Some d/Deaf people embrace cochlear implants, others reject them. It's not our job to decide which accommodations or assistive devices would best serve someone else.

Like, where's the line between building wheelchair ramps and ensuring that nobody ever needs them again?

Even in a world without wheelchairs, we'd still have baby carriages and shopping carts and bicycles and more. Accessibility is good for everyone.

And it's honestly kinda gross to fantasize about a future where any category of people no longer exists.

So, thanks for the charitable interpretation of what I was asking about. It's nice to know that supporting medical research intended to help people live longer, better, healthier lives is a gross fantasy about the elimination of a whole category of people. I'd always wondered if thinking "hey, it'd be nice if nobody ever had to develop MS or be born without hands" made me a nazi, and I am thankful that you were here to tell me that it does.

You're like those people that argue against curing or fixing something, because it'd be an insult to all the people who had to live with it in the past. This is a larger discussion that I think would be interesting to have, and see different viewpoints on, but I don't think I have the fucking energy for it today.

Sarcasm aside, I would like someone to explain--without being a shithead about it--why, if you could wave a magic wand and make it so that nobody was ever born with abnormality (in the medical sense, not value sense) X, why that would be a horrible and bad thing to do. Basically, why is the polio vaccine bad? That if we had Elysium movie style healing/regeneration pods, and they weren't economically restricted, what then? Who do we say shouldn't feel pressured to get in the pod? What do we lose if everyone simply does choose to use the pod?

[Thaluikhain]

Sarcasm aside, I would like someone to explain--without being a shithead about it--why, if you could wave a magic wand and make it so that nobody was ever born with abnormality (in the medical sense, not value sense) X, why that would be a horrible and bad thing to do.

The answer to that would almost certainly be political, so...

[Whatever]

I'm not clear how aborting fetuses with Down syndrome is in any way "supporting medical research intended to help people live longer, better, healthier lives". Unless you're suggesting that they don't count as people?

I'm here for medical research and better technology, there's tons of people who want those changes and it should be an option for them.

What I'm not here for is the idea that other people need to be "cured" or "fixed" if they don't have a problem with themselves. I'm not asking anyone to suffer, I'm only saying that you and I don't get to decide whether someone else is suffering or not. That's up to them. And I agree that there are conditions that literally no one wants (I mentioned chronic pain as an example).

The secondary problem with that focus on "curing" and "fixing" is that it puts all the burden on people with disabilities to change themselves to fit in to society, rather than allowing for the idea that we might need to change society to accommodate people with disabilities.

[violence in the media]

According to the CDC, in 2007, people with Down's syndrome had an average life expectancy of 47 years. So simply not having Down's syndrome increases your life expectancy by 30-ish years. I suppose I am suggesting that fetuses do not count as people yet, whether they have Down's syndrome or not.

But forget abortion for a moment, suppose someone develops a treatment, with CRISPR or something, that will edit a fetus' genetic code such that it will not be born with Down's syndrome. Are you suggesting that such a treatment would be unacceptable for the parents to opt for, or that the medical research should instead focus on addressing the heart defects, intestinal blockage, and other associated issues independently? I am genuinely trying to understand here, because--to me--it really sounds like you're saying that some people just need to have polio so that we as a society can better learn to accommodate them.

What is medical science if not "curing" or "fixing" things that go "wrong" with our bodies? If I lose an arm, and I can repair or replace that injury, I'm certainly going to do that rather than simply learn to live with one arm. I've known lots of people that have gotten LASIK, or wear glasses or contacts, rather than simply learning to live with poor eyesight. And, yes, I guess I think that at a certain point my refusal to get a cloned arm or prosthetic replacement would amount to a petulant stubbornness on my part. It would be akin to saying to everyone around me, "I could have two arms, but I'd rather be a pain in the ass and make all of you accommodate me instead."

Accommodating people with disabilities is the good and right thing to do, and I agree that our society should be better about it, but I view it as an intermediate step to the point where none of us have to have any disabilities in the first place. I am not saying that someone's life is not worth living, or that they are subhuman, or anything like that. But, at some point in our technological development, you are going to have to deliberately inflict something like Down's syndrome on someone and, if we don't have the right to determine that they shouldn't have it, we definitely don't have the right to determine that they must.

[Kaelik]

But forget abortion for a moment, suppose someone develops a treatment, with CRISPR or something, that will edit a fetus' genetic code such that it will not be born with Down's syndrome. Are you suggesting that such a treatment would be unacceptable for the parents to opt for, or that the medical research should instead focus on addressing the heart defects, intestinal blockage, and other associated issues independently? I am genuinely trying to understand here, because--to me--it really sounds like you're saying that some people just need to have polio so that we as a society can better learn to accommodate them.

The answer to this question and similar questions like it is fundamentally about political conflicts in society and so no one can answer you, which you've already been told.

[Whatever]

I'll defer to an expert here: Please Don't Edit Me Out

Hopefully that provides some useful context, without getting political.

[violence in the media]

Thanks, I'll shut up now.

[Orion]

Best wishes to ye, Shrapnel.

[Aryxbez]

(Salutes) Deceptions Forever, loss of any Denner is a tragedy to discussion.