3 ms·

Just want to point out that the same people who say "sorry if you don't have a phone you can't shop" are probably the same who claim requiring ID to vote is "vo

Just want to point out that the same people who say "sorry if you don't have a phone you can't shop" are probably the same who claim requiring ID to vote is "voter disenfranchisement" and that disabled people should have special exceptions made for them. The claim "sorry you don't have a smart phone you can't buy food / clothes" has implications for people (children, the elderly, the disabled, the poor). Just replace "smartphone" with "stairs" (if you can't climb stairs sorry no food / clothes for you). Hey if its a problem, just order online, or get a friend to do it, why should we have to cater to people who aren't normal? Combine that with a culture where your phone can be disabled for many reasons (failure to pay, socially unacceptable views, employer owned) and you're creating a rather distopian picture. I'm all for a more streamlined version for people who are able, and that may well be the vast majority, but it makes sense to make provisions for those who aren't and not to say "sorry history has moved forward, if you don't have a car you can't have a job or go shopping." (as another example)

aboringusername 6y ago
Covid has already accelerated a cashless society, whereby you are incentivized to have a digital means of paying; GPay, Apple pay, Contactless card (and payment limits have increased as a result). You also have various testing and tracing schemes, perhaps using QR codes to scan as you enter a place, an "app" to monitor closeness to people who might have Covid. Those who cannot, do not or will not have a smartphone will become marginalized and excluded from society. The expectation and norm will be to obtain and fully use your digital extension (and there are many smartphones that are very cheap). Eventually, smartphoneless people will become a percentile point of the population that are easily discarded and hidden, and from my perspective that's becoming more and more obvious as time goes on. To me this is simply an observation, not a commentary as to whether it's good, bad, but it seems this is the direction society is accepting since I don't see any movements against smartphones or this type of future.
johnday 6y ago
> Just want to point out that the same people who say "sorry if you don't have a phone you can't shop" are probably the same who claim requiring ID to vote is "voter disenfranchisement" and that disabled people should have special exceptions made for them. What makes you think that those are the same people? At first blush it seems like people in favour of easier access to vote and easier access for the disabled would be the same people that advocate for more inclusive access to shops.
colejohnson66 6y ago
> why should we have to cater to people who aren't normal? Because (in the USA) the ADA exists, and has been shown to help even non disabled people. Elevators were mandated on multi floor buildings because of wheelchairs, but they have a benefit of also being available for non disabled people who have their hands full of groceries. Also, what is “normal” to you won’t be the same as someone else. Is a wheelchair bound person normal? A highly autistic person? What about high functioning autism? If you’re going to define “normal”, you’d be drawing a line somewhere where you can’t please everyone.
- quirkybeats1 6y ago
  I think you may have read a specific bit of that posters sentence and taken it as a direct attack and not the fact that you are 100% in agreement with them. They are saying that with the way society is moving forward, if you do not own a smartphone you are not considered "normal". We have the ADA in the USA for this reason, so that all aspects of society are accessible. There is nothing currently that prevents you being excluded if you do not have a smartphone and are therefore not considered "normal".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

aboringusername 6y ago

Covid has already accelerated a cashless society, whereby you are incentivized to have a digital means of paying; GPay, Apple pay, Contactless card (and payment limits have increased as a result). You also have various testing and tracing schemes, perhaps using QR codes to scan as you enter a place, an "app" to monitor closeness to people who might have Covid. Those who cannot, do not or will not have a smartphone will become marginalized and excluded from society. The expectation and norm will be to obtain and fully use your digital extension (and there are many smartphones that are very cheap). Eventually, smartphoneless people will become a percentile point of the population that are easily discarded and hidden, and from my perspective that's becoming more and more obvious as time goes on. To me this is simply an observation, not a commentary as to whether it's good, bad, but it seems this is the direction society is accepting since I don't see any movements against smartphones or this type of future.

johnday 6y ago

> Just want to point out that the same people who say "sorry if you don't have a phone you can't shop" are probably the same who claim requiring ID to vote is "voter disenfranchisement" and that disabled people should have special exceptions made for them. What makes you think that those are the same people? At first blush it seems like people in favour of easier access to vote and easier access for the disabled would be the same people that advocate for more inclusive access to shops.

colejohnson66 6y ago

> why should we have to cater to people who aren't normal? Because (in the USA) the ADA exists, and has been shown to help even non disabled people. Elevators were mandated on multi floor buildings because of wheelchairs, but they have a benefit of also being available for non disabled people who have their hands full of groceries. Also, what is “normal” to you won’t be the same as someone else. Is a wheelchair bound person normal? A highly autistic person? What about high functioning autism? If you’re going to define “normal”, you’d be drawing a line somewhere where you can’t please everyone.

quirkybeats1 6y ago
I think you may have read a specific bit of that posters sentence and taken it as a direct attack and not the fact that you are 100% in agreement with them. They are saying that with the way society is moving forward, if you do not own a smartphone you are not considered "normal". We have the ADA in the USA for this reason, so that all aspects of society are accessible. There is nothing currently that prevents you being excluded if you do not have a smartphone and are therefore not considered "normal".

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]