4 ms·

You might say that this is bad (and on its face, it certainly does feel that way), but OTOH, it rapidly resulted in an enormous quality-of-life change for disab

You might say that this is bad (and on its face, it certainly does feel that way), but OTOH, it rapidly resulted in an enormous quality-of-life change for disabled people, it is the reason that the US is vastly more accessible than many other places

knaekhoved 4y ago
- anaisbetts 4y ago
  Citation needed?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - threatofrain 4y ago
    We should also have citations for all positions, for example that disability access does not reduce access, such as in the case of UC Berkeley removing 20,000 free video courses. Making things more expensive is also a kind of loss of access; but we must have empiricism to know the weight of this argument and not merely that there may be some legitimacy behind it.
- uranium 4y ago
  That's a bit of a stretch. The point of the ADA and similar laws is to improve access for people with disabilities. Does it increase costs? Yeah, it does. Are the costs "vast"? Generally not; it depends a lot on the situation. Does it make life worse for people without disabilities? That's mixed. Those who bear the compliance costs get some disadvantages. However, lots of people who aren't strictly speaking disabled benefit from the accessibility and usability improvements of captioning, wheelchair ramps, improved light switches, grab rails, etc. Making your business/website/rental-apartment more accessible, even where it's not required, may end up making you more money as your clientele grows and pay for itself. And of course we all end up with disabilities if we live long enough; let's hope we all last to the point that we appreciate the ramps, larger text, captions, etc.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > Is also rapidly resulted in a quality-of-life change for the vast majority of people, It should be noted that it was an insignificant quality of life change for the vast majority of people, and that if laws didn't inconvenience people we wouldn't need any. It's too bad that we can't help the disabled by giving everybody ice cream, but that's the situation we're in.
infamia 4y ago
It is objectively bad, and scummy lawyers are able to abuse the system in part because in the U.S., exactly what is accessible isn't actually written in the law. What's accessible is magically reinterpreted every eight years or so and are jotted down in a vague, sometimes shoddily written document. Such circumstances enables lawyers to take advantage of an ever-changing, poorly defined spec. I'm all for accessibility and work hard to make it happen at my job, but the system in the U.S. objectively awful. Congress should pass a law every time they want to update what is accessible, instead of making it up as they go along and encouraging this sort of litigation fishing for fun and profit.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > It is objectively bad, and scummy lawyers are able to abuse the system in part because in the U.S., exactly what is accessible isn't actually written in the law. No it isn't. It's just evidence that the world isn't perfect. Those "scummy" lawyers are performing an important function, and if not for them things probably wouldn't be anywhere near as accessible for disabled people as they are now. It's kind of ironic that the libertarian-types who are often the loudest ones condemning stuff like this are also the first to defend people similarly motivated by greed as performing important functions, such as price gougers and the like.
  - infamia 4y ago
    > Those "scummy" lawyers are performing an important function, and if not for them things probably wouldn't be anywhere near as accessible for disabled people as they are now. I've read court transcripts of attorneys who march into court wanting to measure the incline of a ramp with a 3 inch ruler (because a 6 inch ruler doesn't prove what they're after). Furthermore, they also want to measure a part of the ramp right under the railing where a handicapped person isn't even able to walk, because that's the only place they could find a violation. This is the type of behavior you get from some of these folks. The way the ADA is written encourages this type of behavior (which doesn't serve anyone but the attorney), because the laws are written so very poorly. > It's kind of ironic that the libertarian-types who are often the loudest ones condemning stuff like this are also the first to defend people similarly motivated by greed as performing important functions, such as price gougers and the like. There is no irony. There is a world of difference in acknowledging that someone has the right to do something as opposed to deciding whether that act is morale. For example, just because someone (e.g. the attorney) has the right to do something (e.g. practice law), I can also at the same time think their behavior (e.g. in the courtroom) is unethical. Furthermore like someone might sell a very poorly made product, they're allowed to do such things, but one could also still find that behavior terribly unethical. With these sorts of attorneys, any small good they may incidentally create, is drowned out by the splash damage they create. The pursuit of you and your family's interests is a moral ideal, that can be corrupted by people who do so without ethics nor regard for the damage they create.

knaekhoved 4y ago

anaisbetts 4y ago
Citation needed?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- threatofrain 4y ago
  We should also have citations for all positions, for example that disability access does not reduce access, such as in the case of UC Berkeley removing 20,000 free video courses. Making things more expensive is also a kind of loss of access; but we must have empiricism to know the weight of this argument and not merely that there may be some legitimacy behind it.
uranium 4y ago
That's a bit of a stretch. The point of the ADA and similar laws is to improve access for people with disabilities. Does it increase costs? Yeah, it does. Are the costs "vast"? Generally not; it depends a lot on the situation. Does it make life worse for people without disabilities? That's mixed. Those who bear the compliance costs get some disadvantages. However, lots of people who aren't strictly speaking disabled benefit from the accessibility and usability improvements of captioning, wheelchair ramps, improved light switches, grab rails, etc. Making your business/website/rental-apartment more accessible, even where it's not required, may end up making you more money as your clientele grows and pay for itself. And of course we all end up with disabilities if we live long enough; let's hope we all last to the point that we appreciate the ramps, larger text, captions, etc.
pessimizer 4y ago
> Is also rapidly resulted in a quality-of-life change for the vast majority of people, It should be noted that it was an insignificant quality of life change for the vast majority of people, and that if laws didn't inconvenience people we wouldn't need any. It's too bad that we can't help the disabled by giving everybody ice cream, but that's the situation we're in.

infamia 4y ago

It is objectively bad, and scummy lawyers are able to abuse the system in part because in the U.S., exactly what is accessible isn't actually written in the law. What's accessible is magically reinterpreted every eight years or so and are jotted down in a vague, sometimes shoddily written document. Such circumstances enables lawyers to take advantage of an ever-changing, poorly defined spec. I'm all for accessibility and work hard to make it happen at my job, but the system in the U.S. objectively awful. Congress should pass a law every time they want to update what is accessible, instead of making it up as they go along and encouraging this sort of litigation fishing for fun and profit.

tablespoon 4y ago
> It is objectively bad, and scummy lawyers are able to abuse the system in part because in the U.S., exactly what is accessible isn't actually written in the law. No it isn't. It's just evidence that the world isn't perfect. Those "scummy" lawyers are performing an important function, and if not for them things probably wouldn't be anywhere near as accessible for disabled people as they are now. It's kind of ironic that the libertarian-types who are often the loudest ones condemning stuff like this are also the first to defend people similarly motivated by greed as performing important functions, such as price gougers and the like.
- infamia 4y ago
  > Those "scummy" lawyers are performing an important function, and if not for them things probably wouldn't be anywhere near as accessible for disabled people as they are now. I've read court transcripts of attorneys who march into court wanting to measure the incline of a ramp with a 3 inch ruler (because a 6 inch ruler doesn't prove what they're after). Furthermore, they also want to measure a part of the ramp right under the railing where a handicapped person isn't even able to walk, because that's the only place they could find a violation. This is the type of behavior you get from some of these folks. The way the ADA is written encourages this type of behavior (which doesn't serve anyone but the attorney), because the laws are written so very poorly. > It's kind of ironic that the libertarian-types who are often the loudest ones condemning stuff like this are also the first to defend people similarly motivated by greed as performing important functions, such as price gougers and the like. There is no irony. There is a world of difference in acknowledging that someone has the right to do something as opposed to deciding whether that act is morale. For example, just because someone (e.g. the attorney) has the right to do something (e.g. practice law), I can also at the same time think their behavior (e.g. in the courtroom) is unethical. Furthermore like someone might sell a very poorly made product, they're allowed to do such things, but one could also still find that behavior terribly unethical. With these sorts of attorneys, any small good they may incidentally create, is drowned out by the splash damage they create. The pursuit of you and your family's interests is a moral ideal, that can be corrupted by people who do so without ethics nor regard for the damage they create.