It seems to me that inclusivity is about more than legislating, and that sometimes, legislating can have adverse consequences on the attitude of others.
This is textbook argument for denying steps towards any kind of equality by raising the spectre of a backlash.
It wasn't an argument, it was an observation. I'm not against the general principle of legislation in favour of inclusivity, but I think its success or otherwise depends a lot on how the legislation is framed and what the outcomes for everybody are.
Except that it is rarely - if ever - proffered by those already embarking on the minor sorts of change you'd assume they would in favour of .. so the practical effect is usually to prevent change of any kind.
Yes, inclusivity is about more than legislating. But it's a really very good first move. No one who ought to be inside should be left outside because they can't access a space created and curated by people who can't hear, won't listen, don't see, and care less.
That may be true in principle, but if the moves in favour of inclusion are such that those for whom special efforts have been made are the only ones left in the room, those excluded will have been excluded twice over. I sincerely believe this to be a potential problem.
Are you saying that mothers will be excluded from baby and toddler carer spaces if fathers are allowed in? Are you saying that people without babies or toddlers will be excluded from public transport and made to walk because the bus has a ramp and space inside for a buggy?
No. You have mistakenly understood that I was expressing a concern on the part of the in-group, whereas I was expressing a concern about the out-group.
In my view, if the attempt at inclusivity is carried out in such a way as to alienate the group into which inclusion is the aim, the result will be that those one is seeking to include will, eventually, be excluded all over again. Inclusivity, by definition, requires an accommodation with a much wider group.
If your argument is that there should be no legislation to include disadvantaged people in wider society until the bigots come around, then I can reliably inform you that Hell's thermostat isn't like to move in the foreseeable.
In my view, the mindset that everyone who isn't happy with a given change seeking inclusivity is a bigot, or a bigot by association, is exactly the kind of thing that can result in the exclusion twice over I referred to above, especially if that attitude is expressed in so many words.
It seems to me that inclusivity is about more than legislating, and that sometimes, legislating can have adverse consequences on the attitude of others.
This is textbook argument for denying steps towards any kind of equality by raising the spectre of a backlash.
It wasn't an argument, it was an observation. I'm not against the general principle of legislation in favour of inclusivity, but I think its success or otherwise depends a lot on how the legislation is framed and what the outcomes for everybody are.
Except that it is rarely - if ever - proffered by those already embarking on the minor sorts of change you'd assume they would in favour of .. so the practical effect is usually to prevent change of any kind.
That's rather a generalisation.
I've worked quite a lot on - and indeed have been regularly personally approached to work on - diversity and inclusion training manuals for major multinationals; that work has included reviewing content as well as translation. The changes these firms have envisaged are not what one might call minor, so far as I know they are implemented, and there is a considerable emphasis on appropriate attitudes being expressed towards all concerned, including any in the in-group who may react negatively. The firms want to keep everyone on board because they see the value of genuine diversity.
(In fact it's my working theory that when it comes to implementation, the private sector can actually manage the kind of issue I referred to in the OP a lot better than anyone else).
And your own voice source / high quality evidence for that is ?
I would like some hostly clarification, please.
Is every post on this thread, by anyone, including what I'd term a right to reply, going to have to abide by this (so far as I can see entirely innovative) new "own voice" rule? Please be explicit.
I’m not hosting this thread, I am asking you - as a shipmate - for some evidence of your assertion. In an ideal world, I’d like that evidence to be of high quality or perhaps to incorporate some reference to what the people trying to be included find actually happens.
My daughter has photo-sensitive epilepsy and loves rock music. She accepts, with sadness, that it is a bad idea for her to go to some concerts. Strobe lighting is the main trigger for her and many people with epilepsy, so she needs to know if any strobe lighting will happen, and needs to be able to exit very quickly if it does. It’s common sense for a venue to advise people of this; you really don’t want a concert interrupted by paramedics.
Because most venues are aware of this, it’s not a major problem. But she’s had to make a hasty exit from a Christmas market, and from a church, to avoid some particularly manic lighting combinations. And there is a particular motorway tunnel near Newport where she has to cover her head as we drive through.
I've worked quite a lot on - and indeed have been regularly personally approached to work on - diversity and inclusion training manuals for major multinationals; that work has included reviewing content as well as translation. The changes these firms have envisaged are not what one might call minor
In whose opinion? A lot of the People of Color who are talking about DEI in the U.S. do not seem impressed.
Since “non minorities” typically benefit from a default sense of inclusion, they’re often not aware that others may feel uncomfortable or excluded. As a result, when the composition of the organization changes to bring more diversity, it’s easy for leadership to fall into a false sense of security and assume the company has achieved major strides when the reality may be that they’ve only taken a first step. From Forbes
“I found it ironic that senior leadership prioritized their public image when internally they dismissed or ignored the very Black voices that they claimed to care about,” she told us. “It made the gesture of solidarity feel like a slap in the face." “Woke-Washing” Your Company Won’t Cut It
Yes, inclusivity is about more than legislating. But it's a really very good first move. No one who ought to be inside should be left outside because they can't access a space created and curated by people who can't hear, won't listen, don't see, and care less.
That may be true in principle, but if the moves in favour of inclusion are such that those for whom special efforts have been made are the only ones left in the room, those excluded will have been excluded twice over. I sincerely believe this to be a potential problem.
Are you saying that mothers will be excluded from baby and toddler carer spaces if fathers are allowed in? Are you saying that people without babies or toddlers will be excluded from public transport and made to walk because the bus has a ramp and space inside for a buggy?
No. You have mistakenly understood that I was expressing a concern on the part of the in-group, whereas I was expressing a concern about the out-group.
In my view, if the attempt at inclusivity is carried out in such a way as to alienate the group into which inclusion is the aim, the result will be that those one is seeking to include will, eventually, be excluded all over again. Inclusivity, by definition, requires an accommodation with a much wider group.
If anything, that's worse. You seem to be saying that people won't share a space that's been redesigned to be accessible to others. What 'accommodation' do you think would be reasonable for those who don't think they should share a bus with a wheelchair user, or a parent and baby?
If your argument is that there should be no legislation to include disadvantaged people in wider society until the bigots come around, then I can reliably inform you that Hell's thermostat isn't like to move in the foreseeable.
In my view, the mindset that everyone who isn't happy with a given change seeking inclusivity is a bigot, or a bigot by association, is exactly the kind of thing that can result in the exclusion twice over I referred to above, especially if that attitude is expressed in so many words.
What word would you prefer me to use? And what process of consultation with people who hold those views would you suggest, that doesn't simply give them the power to block any meaningful change?
In my view, if the attempt at inclusivity is carried out in such a way as to alienate the group into which inclusion is the aim, the result will be that those one is seeking to include will, eventually, be excluded all over again. Inclusivity, by definition, requires an accommodation with a much wider group.
From my safe, privileged corner of a huge multinational I can confirm the mostly-meaningless "woke washing" described by @Gwai. Even with that level of as-inoffensive-as-possible pantomimed inclusion, the reaction from many is drastic. The cries for being offended and de-emphasized have no proportional connection to what is essentially hypothetical minor inconvenience at most. And the pervasive demands to be continually mollified attest to the assumptive privilege at the core of it.
I wish we didn't have to individually reassure every asshole who hates anything that doesn't directly and overtly benefit themselves.
If anything, that's worse. You seem to be saying that people won't share a space that's been redesigned to be accessible to others. What 'accommodation' do you think would be reasonable for those who don't think they should share a bus with a wheelchair user, or a parent and baby?
I don't think that's what @Eutychus was getting at. Having a bus with a wide doorway, and a level entrance from the pavement makes it easier for people with wheelchairs, prams, walking frames and so on to use the bus, but doesn't make the bus any less usable for the able-bodied passengers.
I think @Eutychus had more in mind an accommodation that detracts in some way from the enjoyment that the original set of users got from the activity. I quite like walks up hills / in the country. I very much prefer walking on natural trails to walking on tarmac / concrete paths. The places I enjoy walking are not accessible to wheelchair users, and if you make them accessible to wheelchair users (by laying a wide tarmac path), then they become much less attractive to me.
There are in my local area a number of tarmac / concrete walking paths in scenic places, suitable for use by prams, wheelchairs, and so on. If I want to go for a walk with a baby in a pram, or with a wheelchair user, I'll go to one of them. If I don't need to take a set of wheels with me, I'll choose to go somewhere else without the tarmac path, because I'll enjoy it more.
And your own voice source / high quality evidence for that is ?
I would like some hostly clarification, please.
Is every post on this thread, by anyone, including what I'd term a right to reply, going to have to abide by this (so far as I can see entirely innovative) new "own voice" rule? Please be explicit.
If you have a query about Hosting, then please take it to the Styx. Thank you.
The changes these firms have envisaged are not what one might call minor, so far as I know they are implemented, and there is a considerable emphasis on appropriate attitudes being expressed towards all concerned, including any in the in-group who may react negatively. The firms want to keep everyone on board because they see the value of genuine diversity.
(In fact it's my working theory that when it comes to implementation, the private sector can actually manage the kind of issue I referred to in the OP a lot better than anyone else).
Further to Gwai's post above: Their implementation may be very good, but it's useful to interrogate exactly what issue they are trying to manage rather than take them at their word.
The reality is that these programs are very bad at addressing issues of equality (wrt Gwai's post) or even issues of attitude. That they are so bad at affecting structural change should cast serious doubt on the idea that this is their ultimate function.
In the US particularly, these programs often serve a exculpatory purpose, as they can be used as evidence in any future discrimination lawsuits while appearing to commit the company to social justice. At the same time the bosses are generally the ones who get to define discrimination and so this can be another tool used to discipline the workforce as in the GM case here.
So no, I don't think such programs are a particularly good model of policies intended to increase inclusion.
If anything, that's worse. You seem to be saying that people won't share a space that's been redesigned to be accessible to others. What 'accommodation' do you think would be reasonable for those who don't think they should share a bus with a wheelchair user, or a parent and baby?
I don't think that's what @Eutychus was getting at. Having a bus with a wide doorway, and a level entrance from the pavement makes it easier for people with wheelchairs, prams, walking frames and so on to use the bus, but doesn't make the bus any less usable for the able-bodied passengers.
I think @Eutychus had more in mind an accommodation that detracts in some way from the enjoyment that the original set of users got from the activity.
While we wait for Eutychus himself to explain in which scenarios his objections are relevant, I'm going to point out that all-terrain buggies (up to adult size) have been a thing for at least two decades, and that the push to pave paths up mountainsides has come from the erosion of existing routes by the able-bodied.
There are in my local area a number of tarmac / concrete walking paths in scenic places, suitable for use by prams, wheelchairs, and so on. If I want to go for a walk with a baby in a pram, or with a wheelchair user, I'll go to one of them. If I don't need to take a set of wheels with me, I'll choose to go somewhere else without the tarmac path, because I'll enjoy it more.
I'm really troubled by this statement, and I'm trying to break it down.
Firstly, I've been an able-bodied adult pushing a baby in a stroller (pram), and lifting the stroller over logs and through mud. As an able-bodied adult was able to make a change in how I used the trails by using a baby carrier instead. And I agree, rugged terrain can be fun (within reason while baby carrying).
Then the wheelchair user was brought in, and I thought, hey, there's a trend in my area where parks are providing all-terrain chairs for wheelchair users to enjoy the trails, and it is awesome. So there is accommodation being made that allows more people to enjoy some of that rugged terrain.
But you put "baby in a pram" in the same category as a "wheelchair user". That is really troubling. I'm sure I would have gotten there sooner if I wasn't able-bodied and trying to dismantle my own ableism. But that is what it is, ableist.
Further to this, I'm not aware of any disability rights group looking to pave routes up mountains - if you have information on this, then please present it. Otherwise, it can be usefully filed along with the people with epilepsy trying to get rock concerts banned.
I’m not hosting this thread, I am asking you - as a shipmate - for some evidence of your assertion. In an ideal world, I’d like that evidence to be of high quality or perhaps to incorporate some reference to what the people trying to be included find actually happens.
I'm not sure this is a perfect example but to my mind it illustrates the kind of thing I'm getting at.
So far as I can tell, the introduction of same-sex marriage in England and Wales was relatively straightforward, with cross-party support and a negotiated agreement (in principle) for canon law. Of course there was and is opposition, but my perception is that the way the legislation was framed has secured broad acceptance.
Similar legislation in France passed at around the same time but in very different circumstances. The Socialist President-to-be François Hollande made it a highly politicised issue and a key election pledge and the votes to pass the bill were much more split. The opposition was massive (the police estimated a demonstration at the time to have drawn 340,000 people; the protestors estimated more like a million), highly vocal, and continues.
The politicisation of the issue plus the collapse of the Socialist Party today (their candidate is currently set to lose her deposit, polling at around 2%) is probably damaging to the long-term security of the law and related matters such as adoption; the centre-right party candidate has previously been opposed to same-sex marriages and has attended meetings by the organised opposition; her position on the issue does not appear entirely clear (article in French, review of other right-wing candidates' histories on the topic here).
I'm in favour of same-sex marriage. I'm sure many factors contribute to the different pictures of how its legalisation played out in England & Wales and France, but I'm also convinced that its politicisation in France, with ensuing inflammatory language being thrown about, has not helped it achieve such broad recognition or approval, nor do I think political weaponisation of the issue has served the individuals concerned well.
I'm not sure the difference between England & Wales and France is one of framing so much as political situations - you say equal marriage had cross-party support in England and Wales but that's only sort of true - a majority of the parliamentary Conservative party opposed the legislation, with all the usual abusive canards one comes to expect around LGBT equality. The fact that it was a Conservative government that implemented the legislation cut off the opposition to it at the head.
Plus we only got to a position where a conservative government did that, because we had been calling out the bigotry involved for decades and making it progressively less socially acceptable.
And - counter-example - the referendum campaign for same sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland (and we all know how divisive a referendum campaign can be) did not result in the rise of the far right over there in the same way. So I’d suggest there are other factors at play in the French political scene.
(I am gay, I have been - perhaps unavoidably - following the changes around this all my adult life, both in a secular context and the process within my church.)
nor do I think political weaponisation of the issue has served the individuals concerned well.
Have you asked any gay folk their opinion on this? Are they largely accepting that they'd have preferred to have their rights denied until public opinion came around?
Or are you simply using the noise of the opposition to judge whether they're worthy of the rights that the rest of us take for granted? You don't seem to have any skin in this particular game, so I'm left wondering what rights you'd like to be denied if a majority opposed them.
at me in the street, I’ve sat in sermons where 1 Timothy 4:2 has been used to explain how my conscience is mutilated; those who have experienced this directed toward themselves and/or those whom they love may well be angry.
Should I be more polite before you decide to answer the important questions put to you? For the third time, I'm going to refer you to MLK's letter from a Birmingham jail.
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
This is your attitude. Why should I not condemn it?
The fact that it was a Conservative government that implemented the legislation cut off the opposition to it at the head.
It helps in this respect that the people who head the Conservative parliamentary party (as opposed to their voters or even normal members) are generally more interested to the end of conserving social hierarchies and that social and fiscal conservativism are merely negotiable means.
Epiphanies is a different discussion space from Dead Horses where issues like diversity and inclusion were treated as armchair debate fodder. Where winning or proving a point by those with no skin in the game was what counted.
Because they aren’t. They’re lived experiences. Particularly for those who, without diversity and inclusion, would be considered property, illegal or immoral. It’s also a space where the voices of those who routinely get excluded can be heard.
@MaryLouise ’s original host post asked people to focus on own-voice narratives. Which @Eutychus, you are not. Please refocus your arguments in light of @MaryLouise ’s ruling.
Please note, the language of the boards is English. If you are going to link to foreign language material, please provide a summary and explanation of why you’ve picked that particular source. Life is too short to spend it whacking articles through Google translate.
They don't want rock concerts banned - in that, they are more accepting and tolerant of us non-epileptics.
I don't have epilepsy. I do, however, suffer from motion sickness.
I don't want rollercoasters banned - I just don't want to go on the things. I can see that if I didn't have motion sickness, rollercoasters would probably be quite fun. But I do, and so they aren't.
I don't go on them, and if my friends want to go on a trip to a park containing them and spend the day riding on them, I don't go. Whenever we take the kids anywhere like that, Mrs C goes on the rides with the kids, and I stand and wait holding the bags / babies / whatever.
And that's fine. I'd only feel excluded if all forms of entertainment included surprise rollercoasters for no good reason.
I think a lot of this depends on how central the troublesome element is to the event.
I wouldn't ask that rock concerts all be quiet because someone's (real example coming up) ASD makes the concert inaccessible.
However I would make - and have made- a request to a firework display organiser that they not play music before and after the display at such a volume that conversation is near impossible, in order to be more inclusive, as the music and especially its volume were not intrinsic to the event.
I've also complained to a shopping centre about its loud piped music in the food court that left us having to cower under the stairs to eat.
But you put "baby in a pram" in the same category as a "wheelchair user". That is really troubling. I'm sure I would have gotten there sooner if I wasn't able-bodied and trying to dismantle my own ableism. But that is what it is, ableist.
Both pram and wheelchair are wheeled conveyances for people, both are things I've pushed and accompanied around scenic tarmac paths, neither (at least in standard form) works well in more rugged terrain. Standard prams and wheelchairs have very similar functional needs - smooth surfaces, dropped kerbs, adequate width. Why is it disturbing to place two things with almost identical needs in the same category?
I'm a bit confused by @Doc Tor's link to a list of groups that mostly seem concerned with encouraging black and brown folks to enjoy hiking: there's nothing about the racial or ethnic background of a fellow hiker than can possibly affect someone's enjoyment of a hike, unless they're flat-out racist. And I don't consider "I don't want to see anyone of this minority I don't like" as being worthy of even the smallest consideration.
I'm a bit confused by @Doc Tor's link to a list of groups that mostly seem concerned with encouraging black and brown folks to enjoy hiking: there's nothing about the racial or ethnic background of a fellow hiker than can possibly affect someone's enjoyment of a hike, unless they're flat-out racist. And I don't consider "I don't want to see anyone of this minority I don't like" as being worthy of even the smallest consideration.
Except that we're being asked to consider it, and to judge whether or not it's the right time for black and brown hikers to be permitted to head out into the hills in case it upsets the established social order.
But you put "baby in a pram" in the same category as a "wheelchair user". That is really troubling. I'm sure I would have gotten there sooner if I wasn't able-bodied and trying to dismantle my own ableism. But that is what it is, ableist.
Both pram and wheelchair are wheeled conveyances for people, both are things I've pushed and accompanied around scenic tarmac paths, neither (at least in standard form) works well in more rugged terrain. Standard prams and wheelchairs have very similar functional needs - smooth surfaces, dropped kerbs, adequate width. Why is it disturbing to place two things with almost identical needs in the same category?
I'm a bit confused by @Doc Tor's link to a list of groups that mostly seem concerned with encouraging black and brown folks to enjoy hiking: there's nothing about the racial or ethnic background of a fellow hiker than can possibly affect someone's enjoyment of a hike, unless they're flat-out racist. And I don't consider "I don't want to see anyone of this minority I don't like" as being worthy of even the smallest consideration.
To the first - because treating disabled adults like children is a very common example of widespread ableism. Eg, assuming that a wheelchair user's partner is actually their carer and asking them questions about the wheelchair user as if they're not in the room.
To the second, people of colour and Black people in particular are often erased from or not made to feel welcome in outdoor pursuits, hobbyists of which tend to be almost uniformly white and middle-class/not working-class. There are forms of racism that don't take the form of saying that you don't want to see a Black person on your hike.
On reflection, @Caissa showed in his follow-up to the Host post from @MaryLouise that he knew that his query should have been in the Styx. And, as such clearly disrespects the Hosts here.
In summary, the message I take from the comments above here and here by @Doublethink and @Doc Tor, with sadness, is that when it comes to achieving inclusivity, moderates, even those of good will, deserve to be alienated by all available means, because they are "the great stumbling block" on the path to progress.
To summarise the summary, moderates are no longer welcome here.
In the days when they were, I learned a lot from people on this site who overcame their understandable frustration with those coming from different places from themselves to educate others. My sincere thanks goes to them.
Having that kind of discussion no longer appears to be possible here, or desirable. I regret trying to have one, and I don't intend to try and argue the point in the Styx. I think I'll have to look elsewhere in an attempt to improve my "shallow understanding".
@Eutychus I wasn’t aware you were trying to discuss ship policy - that’s not what your Op says. (And if you were, it should have been in Styx, which as former crew you well know).
Except that we're being asked to consider it, and to judge whether or not it's the right time for black and brown hikers to be permitted to head out into the hills in case it upsets the established social order.
Are we? Has anyone actually proposed that here?
I think there's a clear distinction between not wanting to share space with someone because of who they are (you don't like people from some group or other because you're some kind of bigot) and thinking that some modifications made to a particular activity to widen access to it detract from the enjoyment you get from it.
Which comes back to the question of how central the modification is to the activity, and who decides whether a particular feature is an intrinsic part of the wider activity. @KarlLB talked about hiding from noisy piped music. I find that obnoxious too - I choose not to go to places with loud "background" music, and keep several sets of earplugs in my car in case I don't have the choice. When we're traveling, it's not uncommon for us to be eating dinner somewhere with at least one of our children hiding from the noise behind a pair of ear defenders. I would dearly love it if the world would just stop making gratuitous noise.
But a lot of people enjoy that, and deliberately seek out loud places. If I make them be quiet, I'm detracting from their enjoyment of the restaurant in order to meet my own needs. There's room for noisy places that I don't go to to exist.
To the first - because treating disabled adults like children is a very common example of widespread ableism. Eg, assuming that a wheelchair user's partner is actually their carer and asking them questions about the wheelchair user as if they're not in the room.
But pointing out that prams and wheelchairs have almost identical functional needs is not even remotely similar to treating disabled adults like children. I agree with you that infantilising people in wheelchairs is both common and problematic, but it's also not connected with anything I've said.
I think, in general, the “silent majority” will say they want things to be fair, and so will marginalised communities,
It’s my opinion that these arguments often get heated because when people argue for what they consider “fair”, there tend to be some participants using fair to mean equality and some using it to mean equity - this is quite a good discussion of why that becomes a problem.
The social model of disability was developed in the late 1969s by a group of physically disabled people to challenge the medical model of disability and demonstrate that disability is caused by society putting up barriers which prevent disabled people taking part in society and disempower them. The barriers are physical, attitudinal and structural. It aims for inclusivity and it is used as a tool for social change (though in its early days, the original model and related organisations actually excluded disabled people who weren’t physical disabled!).
It has been the dominant model in the social sciences for 50 years and has had an enormous impact on the lives of disabled people. It is the reason people have changed their language about disability and countries have changed their laws about disability. It is used by universities in their guidance about disability and access, for instance, it was mentioned in the guidelines at a higher education conference I presented at last year (which amused me as I was not using it as my model in the doctorate research I was presenting). 35 years ago my brother was refused a place at college to study computer science because he was visually impaired; today he would (or should) be welcomed, have his needs assessed and be provided with the required assistance and equipment. That is the change it has made in daily lives. It has made society more inclusive of disabled people and changed the dialogue; it has set out what it intended to do and continues to do so.
But it is not, in my opinion, a model for disabled people; it is a model for society. It says society puts up barriers and society needs to bring them down. It empowers disabled people by improving of access of and experience of society. But it does not empower me on a personal level, though it may well have empowered those activists who set the trail blazing. I think the social model can be particular hard for those of us disabled by mental health challenges to relate to. For one thing, we were originally excluded from the organisations involved but there are other issues such as our own barriers being mainly in the area of stigma and negative attitudes rather than physical. In its effort to reject the medical model of disability, the social model ignores the impact having an impairment has on disabled people’s lives. But you can remove all the societal barriers you like from my life and I will still have to live with having bipolar disorder. One bugbear is the emphasis on the power struggle between society and disabled people because that doesn’t reflect the experience of the many people who have loving families and communities. I find the model very negative and think that positive models are more helpful for daily life. The affirmative model is a fairly new and evolving model, developed from within the disability arts movement, especially the learning disability community, which emphasises positive social identities, both individual and collective, and doesn’t ignore the issue of having an impairment, instead embracing difference.
So, the social model is obviously better at achieving inclusivity for a whole variety of reasons including its purpose and longevity. But for achieving empowerment at an individual level, I need something more personal, such as the affirmative model.
I think also, a lot of people would use both, or some kind of hybrid model. Many people have both mental and physical disabilities, and it's not unusual for learning disabled people to also have mental and physical disabilities that are comorbid with their learning disability. For instance, Ehlers Danlos has strong comorbidity with ADHD.
It's also pretty accurate to say that even people who have personally positive experiences with their families and communities would acknowledge that ableism still exists at a structural level. Likewise, there are certainly many people who would hold to some form of the social model of disability while also acknowledging the problems their disability causes for them - funnily enough in my personal experience this is more common for physically disabled people, since there's quite a big anti-psychiatry contingent amongst people with mental disabilities/mental illnesses, at least in the circles I move in (quite probably related to how psychiatry is often used against trans people). I think there's also an element of chronically ill vs disabled here too - like I for instance will probably always have depression and not be cured as such, but live with it as a chronic illness. I feel like although it is certainly disabling, for some reason I think 'chronically mentally ill' is a better description than 'mentally disabled'? I think maybe because I'm used to thinking in terms of mental disability = SpED in academia, which is different to a mood disorder or personality disorder or whatever.
I think this relates to the comments in the Styx thread re neurodiversity and disability. Quite a lot of people with ADHD would consider it to *not* be a disability even if they're medicated for it - they would distinguish between neurodiversity and having a disability (edited to add that this is not my stance personally). Certainly, I've seen people include various mood disorders and personality disorders in their definition of neurodiverse...which I am personally kind of unsure about, but I'm not really educated enough in the actual differences to articulate as to why.
About some of the wording we tend to adopt: I don't think it's always helpful to talk about majorities and minorities.
Disability activists quite rightly point out that if we live long enough, nearly all of us become disabled to one degree or another - we don't call it disability when we can call it old age, but if you need a grab bar in the bathroom, it doesn't matter if it's age or something else that makes that the case, you need that grab bar to be there. If you count up all the people who at some point in their lives have some level of disability, that's most of us. Thinking of able-bodied people as a majority and everyone else as a minority means we keep thinking of ability as a norm from which some are deviating rather than looking at the wide variety of ability across the population.
Another example: I live in a "majority-minority" city; the majority of the people who live here belong to groups that are ethnic minorities in the US. In addition, no one ethnic group is over 50% of the population, and the largest ethnic group is Latinos, who are of course an ethnic minority in the US. So when we're talking about inclusion where I live, it's not a matter of a majority needing to include a majority. It's a matter of a white minority needing to cede power to a larger Latino minority that is terribly disenfranchised, which in turn will need to make sure smaller, even less powerful minorities also have a seat at the table.
I’ve juxtaposed these quotes because I think there is an interesting discussion be had about inclusion and the models that enable it and the barriers that complicate it - and there is some kind of interplay between the ideas quoted.
I'm a bit confused by @Doc Tor's link to a list of groups that mostly seem concerned with encouraging black and brown folks to enjoy hiking: there's nothing about the racial or ethnic background of a fellow hiker than can possibly affect someone's enjoyment of a hike, unless they're flat-out racist. And I don't consider "I don't want to see anyone of this minority I don't like" as being worthy of even the smallest consideration.
Except that we're being asked to consider it, and to judge whether or not it's the right time for black and brown hikers to be permitted to head out into the hills in case it upsets the established social order.
Nobody is saying that, and nobody is preventing black and brown hikers from heading out to the hills.
I think there's a clear distinction between not wanting to share space with someone because of who they are (you don't like people from some group or other because you're some kind of bigot) and thinking that some modifications made to a particular activity to widen access to it detract from the enjoyment you get from it.
Hi, - I pointed out that the pram/wheelchair comparison was a problem because I wanted to share that information, not shame anyone. I also chose to point it out so that someone who is directly affected by that comparison would not have to do the emotional labor of explaining it if they chose not to. I have been blessed with many disabled friends who have very clearly explained to me when I was being ableist, and I hope they continue to do so.
Thanks for pointing that out, @amybo. It can be very easy for us overlook how we are trampling on others, even though we might not be explicitly intending it. It behooves us to pause and consider how we can be missing something if we don't understand what is wrong when we are told something is wrong.
I'm a bit confused by @Doc Tor's link to a list of groups that mostly seem concerned with encouraging black and brown folks to enjoy hiking: there's nothing about the racial or ethnic background of a fellow hiker than can possibly affect someone's enjoyment of a hike, unless they're flat-out racist. And I don't consider "I don't want to see anyone of this minority I don't like" as being worthy of even the smallest consideration.
Except that we're being asked to consider it, and to judge whether or not it's the right time for black and brown hikers to be permitted to head out into the hills in case it upsets the established social order.
Nobody is saying that, and nobody is preventing black and brown hikers from heading out to the hills. <snip>
Unfortunately it seems that some people do want to
I'm a bit confused by @Doc Tor's link to a list of groups that mostly seem concerned with encouraging black and brown folks to enjoy hiking: there's nothing about the racial or ethnic background of a fellow hiker than can possibly affect someone's enjoyment of a hike, unless they're flat-out racist. And I don't consider "I don't want to see anyone of this minority I don't like" as being worthy of even the smallest consideration.
Except that we're being asked to consider it, and to judge whether or not it's the right time for black and brown hikers to be permitted to head out into the hills in case it upsets the established social order.
Nobody is saying that, and nobody is preventing black and brown hikers from heading out to the hills.
There's ample evidence of black and brown hikers receiving abuse - considerably more evidence, in fact, than people with epilepsy wanting to ban rock concerts, which I think was an earlier and entirely unsubstantiated gambit of yours.
I think there's a clear distinction between not wanting to share space with someone because of who they are (you don't like people from some group or other because you're some kind of bigot) and thinking that some modifications made to a particular activity to widen access to it detract from the enjoyment you get from it.
Yes, this. Very much so.
If this is the case, perhaps you can come up with some relevant examples where your enjoyment of something has been diminished by including others. We could then discuss the process around it, in the light of your personal experience.
In summary, the message I take from the comments above here and here by @Doublethink and @Doc Tor, with sadness, is that when it comes to achieving inclusivity, moderates, even those of good will, deserve to be alienated by all available means, because they are "the great stumbling block" on the path to progress.
It's a shame that you seem to have withdrawn from this thread - apparently because you took offence at the MLK quote, which I think accurately skewers your position, just as it did the position of 'white liberals' in the 60s. He made it perfectly clear that what you like to think of as a moderate view was as damaging as an openly extreme one.
It's certainly a journey I've needed to make, to move from preferring an absence of tension to the presence of justice. It's incredibly unrestful, and I often fail at it.
It behooves us to pause and consider how we can be missing something if we don't understand what is wrong when we are told something is wrong.
Asserting that something is wrong, however, does not make it so.
The modifications that need to be made to walking spaces to allow easy access for prams and for wheelchairs are almost identical. It is not in any sense ableist to recognize this truth.
I'm a bit confused by @Doc Tor's link to a list of groups that mostly seem concerned with encouraging black and brown folks to enjoy hiking: there's nothing about the racial or ethnic background of a fellow hiker than can possibly affect someone's enjoyment of a hike, unless they're flat-out racist. And I don't consider "I don't want to see anyone of this minority I don't like" as being worthy of even the smallest consideration.
Except that we're being asked to consider it, and to judge whether or not it's the right time for black and brown hikers to be permitted to head out into the hills in case it upsets the established social order.
Nobody is saying that, and nobody is preventing black and brown hikers from heading out to the hills. <snip>
Unfortunately it seems that some people do want to
This issue got coverage around the time of the BLM protests. This article alludes to the abuse received and some of the stereotypes encountered by BAME women in particular:
I'm also interested in the discussion that @Pomona and @Heavenlyannie were having about mental illness, neurodiversity and disability.
I mark myself down as a person with a disability when asked to do so on a form, but I don't think I regard myself as disabled in going about my daily affairs. In our Federal Disability Discrimination Act, "disability" includes people with a medical condition, so that makes my decision easy.
I think of my situation as living with a chronic illness that I have the capacity to manage with help. I'm feeling a bit fuzzy in the head this morning, so I can't deal properly with the mental illness/neurodiversity point. All I can think of is that we are subject to similar acts of discrimination around presumed capacity, judgement, and reliability I suspect, especially in the workplace. That applies to the extent that our disability impacts upon our behavior when we are engaging with specific people over a period of time. There's also a similarity in that our disabilities are not immediately obvious.
I'm a conservative in the non-party political sense, in that my gut response to change is usually "no", or "I don't like it" or "we are fine the way we are". But a couple of weeks ago I had a personal epiphany about inclusivity when the penny dropped that arguing for it in respect of any perceived difference helps everyone who others seek to exclude or attack. It is likely that I had that epiphany before, and just forgotten it. I have an untidy brain. It helped get me over the instinctive for me attitude of "we are changing too fast for other people".
Should I be more polite before you decide to answer the important questions put to you? For the third time, I'm going to refer you to MLK's letter from a Birmingham jail.
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
This is your attitude. Why should I not condemn it?
@Doc Tor Sometimes tone can be a barrier to people participating in a discussion because they might fear that they will be subject to a negative tone as well, and they might feel fragile. This is something I forget quite often, especially when I am full of passion for a particular argument or I feel aggression/emnity/distaste towards an argument or person.
I was kind of scrolling past the arguments you were having with Eutychus and others, so I may be off-base. Apologies if I am.
I'm a conservative in the non-party political sense, in that my gut response to change is usually "no", or "I don't like it" or "we are fine the way we are". But a couple of weeks ago I had a personal epiphany about inclusivity when the penny dropped that arguing for it in respect of any perceived difference helps everyone who others seek to exclude or attack. It is likely that I had that epiphany before, and just forgotten it. I have an untidy brain. It helped get me over the instinctive for me attitude of "we are changing too fast for other people".
It occurs to me that my experience with bi-polar disorder helps me overcome my initial conservative responses because I got used to interrogating my thoughts to try and work out whether they were a product of a heightened emotional state.
I've also complained to a shopping centre about its loud piped music in the food court that left us having to cower under the stairs to eat.
This and your fireworks example are interesting.
I find loud piped music in shopping centres and similar places highly obnoxious, and tend to choose not to go there as a consequence. Although if needs must, I have a stash of earplugs in the car, and it's pretty common for at least one of our kids to retreat behind ear defenders in some unpleasantly noisy environment. And I too, tend to complain about the volume and ask if it can be turned down.
On the other hand, there appear to be other groups of people who actively enjoy the volume. So who decides whether loud music is intrinsic to a fireworks display, or to a food hall? It seems to enhance the enjoyment for a lot of people.
Every year, my city has fireworks for July 4th, accompanied by music, with the fireworks timed to match the music. Lots of people choose to go downtown and watch the display, and have the full audio experience. Many other people choose to sit on hillsides, in back yards, or wherever else, and watch the display, and the majority of those people choose to play the local radio station that broadcasts the audio program, because they think the loud music enhances the display. So it seems that most people's enjoyment would be reduced if the music was removed.
And that's where things get interesting. There are some forms of inclusion that increase access to an activity without any significant effects on the activity itself, and I think everyone reasonable agrees that of course those are good things, and we should do them.
But then there are other forms of inclusion that modify the activity. In some cases (and we've seen examples on this thread), you can accomplish this by time-sharing: special showings of films where the volume is reduced, shows where the strobe lighting is not used, and the like. Someone gave an example of a quiet room from where someone could enjoy a muted version of a concert. These are ways you can provide special accommodation for people with particular needs whilst leaving the general performance unchanged.
But in some cases, including someone means changing the whole activity, and then we start arguing about whether the thing that needs changing is a significant part of the activity, ...
Comments
Except that it is rarely - if ever - proffered by those already embarking on the minor sorts of change you'd assume they would in favour of .. so the practical effect is usually to prevent change of any kind.
In my view, if the attempt at inclusivity is carried out in such a way as to alienate the group into which inclusion is the aim, the result will be that those one is seeking to include will, eventually, be excluded all over again. Inclusivity, by definition, requires an accommodation with a much wider group.
In my view, the mindset that everyone who isn't happy with a given change seeking inclusivity is a bigot, or a bigot by association, is exactly the kind of thing that can result in the exclusion twice over I referred to above, especially if that attitude is expressed in so many words.
I've worked quite a lot on - and indeed have been regularly personally approached to work on - diversity and inclusion training manuals for major multinationals; that work has included reviewing content as well as translation. The changes these firms have envisaged are not what one might call minor, so far as I know they are implemented, and there is a considerable emphasis on appropriate attitudes being expressed towards all concerned, including any in the in-group who may react negatively. The firms want to keep everyone on board because they see the value of genuine diversity.
(In fact it's my working theory that when it comes to implementation, the private sector can actually manage the kind of issue I referred to in the OP a lot better than anyone else).
I would like some hostly clarification, please.
Is every post on this thread, by anyone, including what I'd term a right to reply, going to have to abide by this (so far as I can see entirely innovative) new "own voice" rule? Please be explicit.
Because most venues are aware of this, it’s not a major problem. But she’s had to make a hasty exit from a Christmas market, and from a church, to avoid some particularly manic lighting combinations. And there is a particular motorway tunnel near Newport where she has to cover her head as we drive through.
Since “non minorities” typically benefit from a default sense of inclusion, they’re often not aware that others may feel uncomfortable or excluded. As a result, when the composition of the organization changes to bring more diversity, it’s easy for leadership to fall into a false sense of security and assume the company has achieved major strides when the reality may be that they’ve only taken a first step. From Forbes
“I found it ironic that senior leadership prioritized their public image when internally they dismissed or ignored the very Black voices that they claimed to care about,” she told us. “It made the gesture of solidarity feel like a slap in the face." “Woke-Washing” Your Company Won’t Cut It
While companies, at least outwardly, agree on the importance of diversity across organizations, the available data shows that women and minorities are drastically underrepresented when moving up the ranks. Companies are making bold promises about greater diversity, but there’s a long way to go
If anything, that's worse. You seem to be saying that people won't share a space that's been redesigned to be accessible to others. What 'accommodation' do you think would be reasonable for those who don't think they should share a bus with a wheelchair user, or a parent and baby?
What word would you prefer me to use? And what process of consultation with people who hold those views would you suggest, that doesn't simply give them the power to block any meaningful change?
From my safe, privileged corner of a huge multinational I can confirm the mostly-meaningless "woke washing" described by @Gwai. Even with that level of as-inoffensive-as-possible pantomimed inclusion, the reaction from many is drastic. The cries for being offended and de-emphasized have no proportional connection to what is essentially hypothetical minor inconvenience at most. And the pervasive demands to be continually mollified attest to the assumptive privilege at the core of it.
I wish we didn't have to individually reassure every asshole who hates anything that doesn't directly and overtly benefit themselves.
I don't think that's what @Eutychus was getting at. Having a bus with a wide doorway, and a level entrance from the pavement makes it easier for people with wheelchairs, prams, walking frames and so on to use the bus, but doesn't make the bus any less usable for the able-bodied passengers.
I think @Eutychus had more in mind an accommodation that detracts in some way from the enjoyment that the original set of users got from the activity. I quite like walks up hills / in the country. I very much prefer walking on natural trails to walking on tarmac / concrete paths. The places I enjoy walking are not accessible to wheelchair users, and if you make them accessible to wheelchair users (by laying a wide tarmac path), then they become much less attractive to me.
There are in my local area a number of tarmac / concrete walking paths in scenic places, suitable for use by prams, wheelchairs, and so on. If I want to go for a walk with a baby in a pram, or with a wheelchair user, I'll go to one of them. If I don't need to take a set of wheels with me, I'll choose to go somewhere else without the tarmac path, because I'll enjoy it more.
If you have a query about Hosting, then please take it to the Styx. Thank you.
Tubbs
Temp Host
Further to Gwai's post above: Their implementation may be very good, but it's useful to interrogate exactly what issue they are trying to manage rather than take them at their word.
The reality is that these programs are very bad at addressing issues of equality (wrt Gwai's post) or even issues of attitude. That they are so bad at affecting structural change should cast serious doubt on the idea that this is their ultimate function.
In the US particularly, these programs often serve a exculpatory purpose, as they can be used as evidence in any future discrimination lawsuits while appearing to commit the company to social justice. At the same time the bosses are generally the ones who get to define discrimination and so this can be another tool used to discipline the workforce as in the GM case here.
So no, I don't think such programs are a particularly good model of policies intended to increase inclusion.
While we wait for Eutychus himself to explain in which scenarios his objections are relevant, I'm going to point out that all-terrain buggies (up to adult size) have been a thing for at least two decades, and that the push to pave paths up mountainsides has come from the erosion of existing routes by the able-bodied.
I too like my wild places, and efforts by minority groups to access them are absolutely and unequivocally welcome. Here are some of them: https://www.snaptrip.com/c/adventures-wellbeing/bame-organisations-outdoors-inclusive/
I'm really troubled by this statement, and I'm trying to break it down.
Firstly, I've been an able-bodied adult pushing a baby in a stroller (pram), and lifting the stroller over logs and through mud. As an able-bodied adult was able to make a change in how I used the trails by using a baby carrier instead. And I agree, rugged terrain can be fun (within reason while baby carrying
Then the wheelchair user was brought in, and I thought, hey, there's a trend in my area where parks are providing all-terrain chairs for wheelchair users to enjoy the trails, and it is awesome. So there is accommodation being made that allows more people to enjoy some of that rugged terrain.
But you put "baby in a pram" in the same category as a "wheelchair user". That is really troubling. I'm sure I would have gotten there sooner if I wasn't able-bodied and trying to dismantle my own ableism. But that is what it is, ableist.
I'm not sure this is a perfect example but to my mind it illustrates the kind of thing I'm getting at.
So far as I can tell, the introduction of same-sex marriage in England and Wales was relatively straightforward, with cross-party support and a negotiated agreement (in principle) for canon law. Of course there was and is opposition, but my perception is that the way the legislation was framed has secured broad acceptance.
Similar legislation in France passed at around the same time but in very different circumstances. The Socialist President-to-be François Hollande made it a highly politicised issue and a key election pledge and the votes to pass the bill were much more split. The opposition was massive (the police estimated a demonstration at the time to have drawn 340,000 people; the protestors estimated more like a million), highly vocal, and continues.
The politicisation of the issue plus the collapse of the Socialist Party today (their candidate is currently set to lose her deposit, polling at around 2%) is probably damaging to the long-term security of the law and related matters such as adoption; the centre-right party candidate has previously been opposed to same-sex marriages and has attended meetings by the organised opposition; her position on the issue does not appear entirely clear (article in French, review of other right-wing candidates' histories on the topic here).
I'm in favour of same-sex marriage. I'm sure many factors contribute to the different pictures of how its legalisation played out in England & Wales and France, but I'm also convinced that its politicisation in France, with ensuing inflammatory language being thrown about, has not helped it achieve such broad recognition or approval, nor do I think political weaponisation of the issue has served the individuals concerned well.
tldr; how legislation is enacted matters.
And - counter-example - the referendum campaign for same sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland (and we all know how divisive a referendum campaign can be) did not result in the rise of the far right over there in the same way. So I’d suggest there are other factors at play in the French political scene.
(I am gay, I have been - perhaps unavoidably - following the changes around this all my adult life, both in a secular context and the process within my church.)
Have you asked any gay folk their opinion on this? Are they largely accepting that they'd have preferred to have their rights denied until public opinion came around?
Or are you simply using the noise of the opposition to judge whether they're worthy of the rights that the rest of us take for granted? You don't seem to have any skin in this particular game, so I'm left wondering what rights you'd like to be denied if a majority opposed them.
I used to get people shouting
Should I be more polite before you decide to answer the important questions put to you? For the third time, I'm going to refer you to MLK's letter from a Birmingham jail.
This is your attitude. Why should I not condemn it?
It helps in this respect that the people who head the Conservative parliamentary party (as opposed to their voters or even normal members) are generally more interested to the end of conserving social hierarchies and that social and fiscal conservativism are merely negotiable means.
Epiphanies is a different discussion space from Dead Horses where issues like diversity and inclusion were treated as armchair debate fodder. Where winning or proving a point by those with no skin in the game was what counted.
Because they aren’t. They’re lived experiences. Particularly for those who, without diversity and inclusion, would be considered property, illegal or immoral. It’s also a space where the voices of those who routinely get excluded can be heard.
@MaryLouise ’s original host post asked people to focus on own-voice narratives. Which @Eutychus, you are not. Please refocus your arguments in light of @MaryLouise ’s ruling.
Please note, the language of the boards is English. If you are going to link to foreign language material, please provide a summary and explanation of why you’ve picked that particular source. Life is too short to spend it whacking articles through Google translate.
Host Mode Off
Tubbs
Caissa, if you have questions about Host interventions or rulings, please take them to the Styx.
Hosting off
Mary Louise, Epiphanies Host
Because you already knew to ask in the Styx but chose to ask here anyway?
I'm sure you all know which forum is best for your side conversations. It isn't here.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
I think a lot of this depends on how central the troublesome element is to the event.
I wouldn't ask that rock concerts all be quiet because someone's (real example coming up) ASD makes the concert inaccessible.
However I would make - and have made- a request to a firework display organiser that they not play music before and after the display at such a volume that conversation is near impossible, in order to be more inclusive, as the music and especially its volume were not intrinsic to the event.
I've also complained to a shopping centre about its loud piped music in the food court that left us having to cower under the stairs to eat.
Both pram and wheelchair are wheeled conveyances for people, both are things I've pushed and accompanied around scenic tarmac paths, neither (at least in standard form) works well in more rugged terrain. Standard prams and wheelchairs have very similar functional needs - smooth surfaces, dropped kerbs, adequate width. Why is it disturbing to place two things with almost identical needs in the same category?
I'm a bit confused by @Doc Tor's link to a list of groups that mostly seem concerned with encouraging black and brown folks to enjoy hiking: there's nothing about the racial or ethnic background of a fellow hiker than can possibly affect someone's enjoyment of a hike, unless they're flat-out racist. And I don't consider "I don't want to see anyone of this minority I don't like" as being worthy of even the smallest consideration.
Except that we're being asked to consider it, and to judge whether or not it's the right time for black and brown hikers to be permitted to head out into the hills in case it upsets the established social order.
To the first - because treating disabled adults like children is a very common example of widespread ableism. Eg, assuming that a wheelchair user's partner is actually their carer and asking them questions about the wheelchair user as if they're not in the room.
To the second, people of colour and Black people in particular are often erased from or not made to feel welcome in outdoor pursuits, hobbyists of which tend to be almost uniformly white and middle-class/not working-class. There are forms of racism that don't take the form of saying that you don't want to see a Black person on your hike.
On reflection, @Caissa showed in his follow-up to the Host post from @MaryLouise that he knew that his query should have been in the Styx. And, as such clearly disrespects the Hosts here.
@Caissa has earned two weeks shore leave
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
To summarise the summary, moderates are no longer welcome here.
In the days when they were, I learned a lot from people on this site who overcame their understandable frustration with those coming from different places from themselves to educate others. My sincere thanks goes to them.
Having that kind of discussion no longer appears to be possible here, or desirable. I regret trying to have one, and I don't intend to try and argue the point in the Styx. I think I'll have to look elsewhere in an attempt to improve my "shallow understanding".
@Eutychus I wasn’t aware you were trying to discuss ship policy - that’s not what your Op says. (And if you were, it should have been in Styx, which as former crew you well know).
Are we? Has anyone actually proposed that here?
I think there's a clear distinction between not wanting to share space with someone because of who they are (you don't like people from some group or other because you're some kind of bigot) and thinking that some modifications made to a particular activity to widen access to it detract from the enjoyment you get from it.
Which comes back to the question of how central the modification is to the activity, and who decides whether a particular feature is an intrinsic part of the wider activity. @KarlLB talked about hiding from noisy piped music. I find that obnoxious too - I choose not to go to places with loud "background" music, and keep several sets of earplugs in my car in case I don't have the choice. When we're traveling, it's not uncommon for us to be eating dinner somewhere with at least one of our children hiding from the noise behind a pair of ear defenders. I would dearly love it if the world would just stop making gratuitous noise.
But a lot of people enjoy that, and deliberately seek out loud places. If I make them be quiet, I'm detracting from their enjoyment of the restaurant in order to meet my own needs. There's room for noisy places that I don't go to to exist.
But pointing out that prams and wheelchairs have almost identical functional needs is not even remotely similar to treating disabled adults like children. I agree with you that infantilising people in wheelchairs is both common and problematic, but it's also not connected with anything I've said.
I’ve juxtaposed these quotes because I think there is an interesting discussion be had about inclusion and the models that enable it and the barriers that complicate it - and there is some kind of interplay between the ideas quoted.
Nobody is saying that, and nobody is preventing black and brown hikers from heading out to the hills.
Yes, this. Very much so.
As for BIPOC people and the outdoors, inclusion is a really big problem. Here's a really good take on it from Alexis Nicole, the Black Forager: https://www.tiktok.com/@alexisnikole/video/7064694647725002030?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1&lang=en
Unfortunately it seems that some people do want to
If this is the case, perhaps you can come up with some relevant examples where your enjoyment of something has been diminished by including others. We could then discuss the process around it, in the light of your personal experience.
It's a shame that you seem to have withdrawn from this thread - apparently because you took offence at the MLK quote, which I think accurately skewers your position, just as it did the position of 'white liberals' in the 60s. He made it perfectly clear that what you like to think of as a moderate view was as damaging as an openly extreme one.
It's certainly a journey I've needed to make, to move from preferring an absence of tension to the presence of justice. It's incredibly unrestful, and I often fail at it.
Asserting that something is wrong, however, does not make it so.
The modifications that need to be made to walking spaces to allow easy access for prams and for wheelchairs are almost identical. It is not in any sense ableist to recognize this truth.
This issue got coverage around the time of the BLM protests. This article alludes to the abuse received and some of the stereotypes encountered by BAME women in particular:
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2020/dec/02/the-bame-women-making-the-british-outdoors-more-inclusive
I mark myself down as a person with a disability when asked to do so on a form, but I don't think I regard myself as disabled in going about my daily affairs. In our Federal Disability Discrimination Act, "disability" includes people with a medical condition, so that makes my decision easy.
I think of my situation as living with a chronic illness that I have the capacity to manage with help. I'm feeling a bit fuzzy in the head this morning, so I can't deal properly with the mental illness/neurodiversity point. All I can think of is that we are subject to similar acts of discrimination around presumed capacity, judgement, and reliability I suspect, especially in the workplace. That applies to the extent that our disability impacts upon our behavior when we are engaging with specific people over a period of time. There's also a similarity in that our disabilities are not immediately obvious.
I'm a conservative in the non-party political sense, in that my gut response to change is usually "no", or "I don't like it" or "we are fine the way we are". But a couple of weeks ago I had a personal epiphany about inclusivity when the penny dropped that arguing for it in respect of any perceived difference helps everyone who others seek to exclude or attack. It is likely that I had that epiphany before, and just forgotten it. I have an untidy brain. It helped get me over the instinctive for me attitude of "we are changing too fast for other people".
@Doc Tor Sometimes tone can be a barrier to people participating in a discussion because they might fear that they will be subject to a negative tone as well, and they might feel fragile. This is something I forget quite often, especially when I am full of passion for a particular argument or I feel aggression/emnity/distaste towards an argument or person.
I was kind of scrolling past the arguments you were having with Eutychus and others, so I may be off-base. Apologies if I am.
It occurs to me that my experience with bi-polar disorder helps me overcome my initial conservative responses because I got used to interrogating my thoughts to try and work out whether they were a product of a heightened emotional state.
This and your fireworks example are interesting.
I find loud piped music in shopping centres and similar places highly obnoxious, and tend to choose not to go there as a consequence. Although if needs must, I have a stash of earplugs in the car, and it's pretty common for at least one of our kids to retreat behind ear defenders in some unpleasantly noisy environment. And I too, tend to complain about the volume and ask if it can be turned down.
On the other hand, there appear to be other groups of people who actively enjoy the volume. So who decides whether loud music is intrinsic to a fireworks display, or to a food hall? It seems to enhance the enjoyment for a lot of people.
Every year, my city has fireworks for July 4th, accompanied by music, with the fireworks timed to match the music. Lots of people choose to go downtown and watch the display, and have the full audio experience. Many other people choose to sit on hillsides, in back yards, or wherever else, and watch the display, and the majority of those people choose to play the local radio station that broadcasts the audio program, because they think the loud music enhances the display. So it seems that most people's enjoyment would be reduced if the music was removed.
And that's where things get interesting. There are some forms of inclusion that increase access to an activity without any significant effects on the activity itself, and I think everyone reasonable agrees that of course those are good things, and we should do them.
But then there are other forms of inclusion that modify the activity. In some cases (and we've seen examples on this thread), you can accomplish this by time-sharing: special showings of films where the volume is reduced, shows where the strobe lighting is not used, and the like. Someone gave an example of a quiet room from where someone could enjoy a muted version of a concert. These are ways you can provide special accommodation for people with particular needs whilst leaving the general performance unchanged.
But in some cases, including someone means changing the whole activity, and then we start arguing about whether the thing that needs changing is a significant part of the activity, ...