6 ms·

> Accessibility is not accessible if you need to go through extra steps to get it. That seems a bit entitled to me, especially in the story you shared. They ha

> Accessibility is not accessible if you need to go through extra steps to get it. That seems a bit entitled to me, especially in the story you shared. They had access to the school just like everyone else. Why does it have to be in the exact same spot? Surely they could be dropped off by the loading dock as easily as others could be dropped off out front, and maybe even moreso. Should the wheelchair accessible stall be the first stall in the bathroom so they don't have to go through "extra steps" to get to it? As long as the ramp had the proper gradation to satisfy the ADA, I don't see the problem.

shnock 2mo ago
> They had access to the school just like everyone else They literally did not. They had access to the school from a different entrance than everybody else. Specifically, one intended for cargo before people.
- fluoridation 2mo ago
  That's a different sense of "just like". Not "in the same manner", but "to the same extent".
- binaryturtle 2mo ago
  Would it have been different, if they had everyone take the cargo entrance?
  - grim_io 2mo ago
    Yes. It's about discrimination and dehumanizing everyday cruelty.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - psd1 2mo ago
      I'm emotionally aligned with you, but the dehumanisation is the default state (e.g. the able are standing and the wheelchair user is below eye level), and all accommodations are a result of society dedicating resources to moving the needle away from that. It may not be sufficient, and we should criticise when it isn't sufficient, but we must in practical terms also accept tradeoffs in a scarcity economy. In the worst case, some of those tradeoffs accommodate one disability over another disability. If the dean had a swanky office and the wheelchair kid must roll past the bins, then the school made the wrong choice. But if it's a ramp at the front or textbooks, then we must think a bit harder.
- gblargg 2mo ago
  They also literally cannot have the same access like everyone else, since they're in a wheelchair. Everything will be different.

shnock 2mo ago

> They had access to the school just like everyone else They literally did not. They had access to the school from a different entrance than everybody else. Specifically, one intended for cargo before people.

fluoridation 2mo ago
That's a different sense of "just like". Not "in the same manner", but "to the same extent".
binaryturtle 2mo ago
Would it have been different, if they had everyone take the cargo entrance?
- grim_io 2mo ago
  Yes. It's about discrimination and dehumanizing everyday cruelty.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - psd1 2mo ago
    I'm emotionally aligned with you, but the dehumanisation is the default state (e.g. the able are standing and the wheelchair user is below eye level), and all accommodations are a result of society dedicating resources to moving the needle away from that. It may not be sufficient, and we should criticise when it isn't sufficient, but we must in practical terms also accept tradeoffs in a scarcity economy. In the worst case, some of those tradeoffs accommodate one disability over another disability. If the dean had a swanky office and the wheelchair kid must roll past the bins, then the school made the wrong choice. But if it's a ramp at the front or textbooks, then we must think a bit harder.
gblargg 2mo ago
They also literally cannot have the same access like everyone else, since they're in a wheelchair. Everything will be different.