3 ms·
Only in that narrow viewpoint. Most people talk about disability in the context of a society because much of what we encounter in our day to day is created by o
by throwway120385 10mo ago
Only in that narrow viewpoint. Most people talk about disability in the context of a society because much of what we encounter in our day to day is created by other people. The sights, sounds, smells, and experiences in our world are frequently because of others. So in that context, if the dominant culture makes it a point to create experiences that require hearing or sight to consume, then yes it's a disability. But if we adapt some or all of what we do for people who don't have those senses, then we can make it less disabling.
- suddenlybananas 10mo agoWhile it's good for society to accommodate those with disabilities as much as possible, we shouldn't pretend it isn't detrimental to be unable to see or hear. You don't need to believe obvious falsehoods in order to accommodate people.
- fwip 10mo agoYou've set up a straw man here - nobody in this thread is claiming that it's not detrimental to be missing a sense. The point is that disability exists within the context of the world we live in, and the society we've built is one that largely assumes people have both sight and hearing.
- xigoi 9mo ago> Sensory disabilities like deafness and blindness are disabling because the world is not oriented to people with sensory disabilities. Implying that they wouldn’t be detrimental if the world was “oriented” differently.
- retrac 9mo agoSince I'm the person who wrote that I can explain what I meant. I have never had to deal with a giant cat stalking me and being unable to hear it. I do routinely have to deal with intercom systems which I cannot hear, though. The world most humans inhabit is human-made. And the human-made environment can be remade.
- fwip 9mo agoAh, I see the disconnect. In this discussion, "disabling" is not the same as "detrimental." Disabling is when you are unable to do important activities that others can do. I'm not an expert here on the subject, but this is my understanding. For a simplified example, imagine two government buildings, one with and one without an accessibility ramp. A person in a wheelchair is able to access the former, even if going up the ramp takes longer than the stairs. Not having the option to take the stairs is still detrimental to the person, but they're still able to access those services. The second disables the person, as they're no longer able to access important services because they are unable to take the stairs. Accommodations help keep "detrimental" from meaning disabled. The voice at the street crossing that says "walk", curb cuts, and closed captioning all help people participate in daily normal life, despite having those sensory disabilities. There are other designs that are more holistic as well - for example, if those same government services are accessible online, or the agent makes house calls, it naturally makes the services more accessible to more people. (Note: I'm not saying that this specific example is a good idea - just as an example of "how we design our society affects how people can participate in it.")
- lurk2 10mo agoI’ve always found this semantic argument somewhat silly as being blind or deaf is an obvious disadvantage in natural contexts, but one of the more compelling ideas here is that the fitness boundary isn’t fixed. It would probably be a fitness advantage if I could sense electromagnetic fields, but no one would describe me as disabled for not being able to sense these fields—unless, perhaps, everyone else could. So what we consider to be a disability does seem to be a function of what we consider to be normal.
- suddenlybananas 10mo ago>So what we consider to be a disability does seem to be a function of what we consider to be normal. Obviously? How could it be based on anything else? People are just much more uncomfortable with making normative statements than they used to be.
- lurk2 10mo ago> How could it be based on anything else? The point is that the capability is measurable but the capabilities we consider to be essential are based on normalcy and thus effectively arbitrary. Eugenicists make the argument that evolution demonstrates that the classification is not arbitrary because deafness and blindness confer measurable fitness disadvantages, but they don’t actually bridge the gap of deriving an ought from an is. > Obviously? If the answers to these problems are obvious to you, perhaps you’d consider writing a book instead of participating in a discussion forum. I would encourage you to review the site guidelines.
- kazinator 10mo agoIf it were a fitness advantage if you could sense electromagnetic fields, then why have you evolved over billions of years to get where you are, without it? But wait, you do sense electromagnetic fields in the 380 to 750 nm wavelength range, and remarkably well, to great profit. The only fitness advantage that matters for evolution is whatever gets you to pass down your genes, versus someone else not passing down theirs. If sensing low-frequency electromagnetism, or static magnetic fields, were advantageous in the context of everything else that you are, for passing down your genes, you would have it by now. Migratory birds can sense the Earth's magnetic field for navigation; if you needed to migrate thousands of kilometers every year (due to lacking other advantages to make that unnecessary), you might evolve that.
- UltraSane 10mo agoSight and hearing evolved to incredible acuity because they give enormous survival advantage.