4 ms·

I am a 100% P&T disabled veteran - I have handicapped parking and all of that. I could sit here and list out all the medical and legally accepted reasons that

I am a 100% P&T disabled veteran - I have handicapped parking and all of that. I could sit here and list out all the medical and legally accepted reasons that the Veterans Administration, and as a result all other regulatory bodies, give me this status (epilepsy, constantly dislocating shoulders, hip arthritis, tinnitus, PTSD etc...) However I have friends, colleagues and neighbors who are measurably less physically and mentally capable but are not considered disabled. When I look at the job market, MOST people are not capable of doing their individual life without significant training, help, direction or supervision. People call this bad-state "adulting" and find it onerous. Said another way, the vast majority of people do not have the cognitive ability, education (self taught or formal), or experience to set goals, take actions and self improve without significant direction from someone else. I personally consider that disabled. So if these people are considering themselves disabled, then they are probably right - they are incapable of being independent or living within a community that takes care of them. So the only remaining community left is the abstracted transactional monetary system implemented by governments to allocate resources toward them provided they check the right boxes. Ideally 100% of humanity would be on disability - because we can build systems measurably more capable than human labor - someone just needs to rebrand it as "UBI."

DiggyJohnson 1y ago
Interesting perspective. A lot of the nuance and disagreement comes from what we mean when we say “incapable”.
- dingnuts 1y ago
  No, the view that "everyone should be on disability" is just socialism..
constantcrying 1y ago
I would absolutely hate to have to think myself "disabled" and I would hate the idea of the state seeing itself as my "caretaker". What you are describing is also the opposite from what liberal democracy was envisioned as. It was supposed to be a state, which created complete and mature citizens, which make well formed decision and can be trusted with governing the country. To be honest I do not think that you are wrong in your description, the state is certainly transforming into an institution where the citizen are envisioned as disabled wrecks, which are in desperate need of government support. I just hate that this is the case, it is fundamentally incompatible with the ideals of a liberal democracy.
- lazyasciiart 1y ago
  It was supposed to only count landowning males over 25, which was expected to consist of mature able citizens with assets.
  - dingnuts 1y ago
    so the problem is actually allowing renters to vote? that's a wild take I didn't expect to see on the orange site today but points for honesty and boldness I guess
  - constantcrying 1y ago
    I don't know what you are trying to say. Obviously what you are complaining about has changed and now all adults should be capable citizens. Is it wrong that the state wants to create capable and mature citizens who can be trusted with participation in government?
    - 9rx 1y ago
      He is suggesting that in the past, landownership was used as a proxy to determine who was a complete and mature citizen – and perhaps, most importantly, to determine who actually had skin in the game. Human bodies can leave a governing area with else, land cannot. Times have changed. That model wouldn't work today for many reasons. But we haven't replaced the proxy with something that does fit modern times. Nowadays we see literal students who are still trying to become capable and mature citizens participating in government. And per the internet (take that for what you will), up to 40% of those students will move to a different jurisdiction after graduation, so not only are they not yet mature, there is little risk to them if their participation burns things to the ground. Maybe that's okay. The world is our oyster to live in as we see fit. But it is noted earlier that it isn't how things were expected to be when our ideas about government were originally formed.
    - lazyasciiart 1y ago
      I’m saying you are completely wrong about what liberal democracy was envisioned as. Nobody thought the state had to create anything. People were believed to either be capable and worthy, demonstrated by holding assets - or not. > liberal democracy was envisioned as [..] a state, which created complete and mature citizens,
itishappy 1y ago
I just applied to a job and part of it was a disability disclaimer. Here's the list: * Alcohol or other substance use disorder (not currently using drugs illegally) * Autoimmune disorder, for example, lupus, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, HIV/AIDS * Blind or low vision * Cancer (past or present) * Cardiovascular or heart disease * Celiac disease * Cerebral palsy * Deaf or serious difficulty hearing * Diabetes * Disfigurement, for example, disfigurement caused by burns, wounds, accidents, or congenital disorders * Epilepsy or other seizure disorder * Gastrointestinal disorders, for example, Crohn's Disease, irritable bowel syndrome * Intellectual or developmental disability * Mental health conditions, for example, depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD * Missing limbs or partially missing limbs * Mobility impairment, benefiting from the use of a wheelchair, scooter, walker, leg brace(s) and/or other supports * Nervous system condition, for example, migraine headaches, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis (MS) * Neurodivergence, for example, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, dyslexia, dyspraxia, other learning disabilities * Partial or complete paralysis (any cause) * Pulmonary or respiratory conditions, for example, tuberculosis, asthma, emphysema * Short stature (dwarfism) * Traumatic brain injury The form asks if you currently have or have ever had one of these in the past. Well, I don't know if anyone I've met hasn't. I said "no." I have no idea what the right approach here is.
- howard941 1y ago
  If you want the job the right answer's going to be no. Unfortunately only a small fraction of those maladies gets you on disability, almost none of them before age 50.
  - leereeves 1y ago
    Or say yes, then sue when they don't hire you.
    - Buttons840 1y ago
      Yeah... Asking that can't be legal, right?
specialist 1y ago
> the vast majority of people do not have the cognitive ability Fascinating. I'd love to know more. Assuming your statement is true: If most people lack executive function, then people presenting ADHD symptoms are the norm, not the exception. Accepting that hard truth would change society, right? -- Not to get too into the weeds about UBI... > Ideally 100% of humanity would be on disability Do you mean 100% eligibility, regardless? > someone just needs to rebrand it as "UBI." Or maybe you mean the original "negative income tax" proposal? (What the kids today call "UBI".) So that everyone's guaranteed a bare minimum income. In either case: I agree. We'd be able to greatly simplify our patchwork safety network. No need for special consideration for pregnancy, family leave, eldercare, recovering from surgeries, etc.
- AndrewKemendo 1y ago
  My point is we have the mechanisms to implement UBI today if we want, we just choose not to. And yes from my experience with people diagnosed with ADHD - IMO it’s an “adjustment disorder” for people who can’t fit into a rote directed life On the opposite end people with high anxiety but can play the role of doing what they are told go far, but are mimics, and have nary a new thought or alternative view available to them.

DiggyJohnson 1y ago

Interesting perspective. A lot of the nuance and disagreement comes from what we mean when we say “incapable”.

dingnuts 1y ago
No, the view that "everyone should be on disability" is just socialism..

constantcrying 1y ago

I would absolutely hate to have to think myself "disabled" and I would hate the idea of the state seeing itself as my "caretaker". What you are describing is also the opposite from what liberal democracy was envisioned as. It was supposed to be a state, which created complete and mature citizens, which make well formed decision and can be trusted with governing the country. To be honest I do not think that you are wrong in your description, the state is certainly transforming into an institution where the citizen are envisioned as disabled wrecks, which are in desperate need of government support. I just hate that this is the case, it is fundamentally incompatible with the ideals of a liberal democracy.

lazyasciiart 1y ago
It was supposed to only count landowning males over 25, which was expected to consist of mature able citizens with assets.
- dingnuts 1y ago
  so the problem is actually allowing renters to vote? that's a wild take I didn't expect to see on the orange site today but points for honesty and boldness I guess
- constantcrying 1y ago
  I don't know what you are trying to say. Obviously what you are complaining about has changed and now all adults should be capable citizens. Is it wrong that the state wants to create capable and mature citizens who can be trusted with participation in government?
  - 9rx 1y ago
    He is suggesting that in the past, landownership was used as a proxy to determine who was a complete and mature citizen – and perhaps, most importantly, to determine who actually had skin in the game. Human bodies can leave a governing area with else, land cannot. Times have changed. That model wouldn't work today for many reasons. But we haven't replaced the proxy with something that does fit modern times. Nowadays we see literal students who are still trying to become capable and mature citizens participating in government. And per the internet (take that for what you will), up to 40% of those students will move to a different jurisdiction after graduation, so not only are they not yet mature, there is little risk to them if their participation burns things to the ground. Maybe that's okay. The world is our oyster to live in as we see fit. But it is noted earlier that it isn't how things were expected to be when our ideas about government were originally formed.
  - lazyasciiart 1y ago
    I’m saying you are completely wrong about what liberal democracy was envisioned as. Nobody thought the state had to create anything. People were believed to either be capable and worthy, demonstrated by holding assets - or not. > liberal democracy was envisioned as [..] a state, which created complete and mature citizens,

itishappy 1y ago

I just applied to a job and part of it was a disability disclaimer. Here's the list: * Alcohol or other substance use disorder (not currently using drugs illegally) * Autoimmune disorder, for example, lupus, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, HIV/AIDS * Blind or low vision * Cancer (past or present) * Cardiovascular or heart disease * Celiac disease * Cerebral palsy * Deaf or serious difficulty hearing * Diabetes * Disfigurement, for example, disfigurement caused by burns, wounds, accidents, or congenital disorders * Epilepsy or other seizure disorder * Gastrointestinal disorders, for example, Crohn's Disease, irritable bowel syndrome * Intellectual or developmental disability * Mental health conditions, for example, depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD * Missing limbs or partially missing limbs * Mobility impairment, benefiting from the use of a wheelchair, scooter, walker, leg brace(s) and/or other supports * Nervous system condition, for example, migraine headaches, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis (MS) * Neurodivergence, for example, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, dyslexia, dyspraxia, other learning disabilities * Partial or complete paralysis (any cause) * Pulmonary or respiratory conditions, for example, tuberculosis, asthma, emphysema * Short stature (dwarfism) * Traumatic brain injury The form asks if you currently have or have ever had one of these in the past. Well, I don't know if anyone I've met hasn't. I said "no." I have no idea what the right approach here is.

howard941 1y ago
If you want the job the right answer's going to be no. Unfortunately only a small fraction of those maladies gets you on disability, almost none of them before age 50.
- leereeves 1y ago
  Or say yes, then sue when they don't hire you.
  - Buttons840 1y ago
    Yeah... Asking that can't be legal, right?

specialist 1y ago

> the vast majority of people do not have the cognitive ability Fascinating. I'd love to know more. Assuming your statement is true: If most people lack executive function, then people presenting ADHD symptoms are the norm, not the exception. Accepting that hard truth would change society, right? -- Not to get too into the weeds about UBI... > Ideally 100% of humanity would be on disability Do you mean 100% eligibility, regardless? > someone just needs to rebrand it as "UBI." Or maybe you mean the original "negative income tax" proposal? (What the kids today call "UBI".) So that everyone's guaranteed a bare minimum income. In either case: I agree. We'd be able to greatly simplify our patchwork safety network. No need for special consideration for pregnancy, family leave, eldercare, recovering from surgeries, etc.

AndrewKemendo 1y ago
My point is we have the mechanisms to implement UBI today if we want, we just choose not to. And yes from my experience with people diagnosed with ADHD - IMO it’s an “adjustment disorder” for people who can’t fit into a rote directed life On the opposite end people with high anxiety but can play the role of doing what they are told go far, but are mimics, and have nary a new thought or alternative view available to them.