4 ms·

Are people who wear glasses disabled? They have an impairment that can prevent them from full participation in work, family, social life. But they also have an

Are people who wear glasses disabled? They have an impairment that can prevent them from full participation in work, family, social life. But they also have an accessible accommodation that mitigates most of the practical consequences of their impairment. The impairment doesn't go away, but the extent to which is it disabling is a function of the individual's relationship to society. Two people with the same impairment can have different degrees of disability based on accommodation. We can both have bad vision but if I can afford glasses and you can't, only one of us is disabled by it. This is the social model of disability, it's a well established framework that has had immense practical value in the medical treatment of a huge range of disability, including adhd and hearing loss. It's so so shitty to dismiss it as "they are wrong" when you clearly don't even know the absolute basics of the history and practice of this field.

James_K 2y ago
> but the extent to which is it disabling is a function of the individual's relationship to society No it's not. It's a function of the person's relationship to glasses. The same way deaf people are no longer disabled when you restore their hearing. The only difference is that we can all obviously see that depriving children of glasses for the sake of forming a "blind community" is an utterly ridiculous thing to do. What I'm saying is that there are two different cures for deafness. The first is to engineer a world in which it is not necessary to hear, and the second is to restore the individual's hearing. I am of the belief that there is no substantive difference between these two methods as it relates to the argument being made against cochlear implants. Of the two different cures, that is more effective which is the soul issue people take with it. > This is the social model of disability, it's a well established framework that has had immense practical value in the medical treatment of a huge range of disability, including adhd and hearing loss. The conclusion they reach is that a disability can be treated by altering the environment of the person with it. I reach this same conclusion without the need to reference some abstract "society" which causes all these problems. > It's so so shitty to dismiss it as "they are wrong" when you clearly don't even know the absolute basics of the history and practice of this field. Well they are wrong. If you find the truth to be shitty, I suggest you bury your head in the sand.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  Man what do you want to use as shorthand for the entity that produces hearing aids, glasses, wheelchairs, and medicine? And describes why some people have access to them and some don’t? I'm open to a novel nomenclature here I'm just pointing out that there already is an established framework for talking about and thinking about this stuff we could use instead.
  - James_K 2y ago
    Obviously not "society". I've yet to hear of anyone purchasing a pair of glasses from society. When disability advocates refer to society as cause of disability, they are not talking about specific individuals or corporations, but the wider commonalities between individuals and organisations.

James_K 2y ago

> but the extent to which is it disabling is a function of the individual's relationship to society No it's not. It's a function of the person's relationship to glasses. The same way deaf people are no longer disabled when you restore their hearing. The only difference is that we can all obviously see that depriving children of glasses for the sake of forming a "blind community" is an utterly ridiculous thing to do. What I'm saying is that there are two different cures for deafness. The first is to engineer a world in which it is not necessary to hear, and the second is to restore the individual's hearing. I am of the belief that there is no substantive difference between these two methods as it relates to the argument being made against cochlear implants. Of the two different cures, that is more effective which is the soul issue people take with it. > This is the social model of disability, it's a well established framework that has had immense practical value in the medical treatment of a huge range of disability, including adhd and hearing loss. The conclusion they reach is that a disability can be treated by altering the environment of the person with it. I reach this same conclusion without the need to reference some abstract "society" which causes all these problems. > It's so so shitty to dismiss it as "they are wrong" when you clearly don't even know the absolute basics of the history and practice of this field. Well they are wrong. If you find the truth to be shitty, I suggest you bury your head in the sand.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
Man what do you want to use as shorthand for the entity that produces hearing aids, glasses, wheelchairs, and medicine? And describes why some people have access to them and some don’t? I'm open to a novel nomenclature here I'm just pointing out that there already is an established framework for talking about and thinking about this stuff we could use instead.
- James_K 2y ago
  Obviously not "society". I've yet to hear of anyone purchasing a pair of glasses from society. When disability advocates refer to society as cause of disability, they are not talking about specific individuals or corporations, but the wider commonalities between individuals and organisations.