So here is the thing I'm struggling with about antifa at the moment

[kaberett]

It is all very well to say "if you are not with the [explicitly violent] antifascists, you're with the fascists" but what these explanations do not seem to include is actual detailed discussion of how or why I can operate on the assumption that these people won't decide that I'm the next target. "Because you're not a fascist!" Okay, right, no, try again. Try again. I have been told, by people still substantively respected and liked in my geographically local community, that being visibly autistic in public is oppressive. I want to know what the fuck system of rules you're working with that means I won't be deemed unacceptable and I won't be deemed an appropriate target.

"Try not being a fascist!"

Yeah, thanks, see above about "me being visibly disabled in public is oppressive". See every interaction I've ever had where my disabilities are an inconvenience to The Cause.

Try again.

I'm really not comfortable with the extent to which people seem to want to shout me down on this one, using that well-known abusive tactic of telling me that if I don't unquestioningly support them in spite of grave reservations rooted in, like, bare minimum historical literacy plus personal experience, I am all that is Bad and Evil.

I am struggling to articulate this any better because of the sheer visceral horror I'm experiencing at a lot of the rhetoric that's happening. But, like, if you want to engage with me on this -- and I am, very definitely, open to being talked to -- please consider starting from a point of "I see your concerns and they're valid, here's why I'm convinced", not "you're a bad person for having doubts".

If, however, you want to ask me how Very Dare I tone-police you on this, I request that you sit this one out.

Comments

[the_rck]

I worry that universal accessibility may be a pipe dream because of competing needs. I know, for example, that some things that are widely requested in terms of website layout and color combinations are things that make sites very hard for me to use. That is, most people seem to prefer light type on a dark background, but I can't handle that because the letter start to jiggle. I don't have that problem with dark type on light background.

Obviously, the solution here is to let people customize every site they visit. I'm just using it as an example.

I think it would be good if the people managing any large event had someone that people with less commonly understood accessibility needs could talk to. Most people, even those who don't want to deal with the problem, will understand what the barrier is for someone in a wheelchair who's facing a stair or a too narrow door, but a lot of people will not understand the problem of a venue that doesn't allow outside food even for people with severe restrictions. 'Just leave the venue to eat' isn't helpful if it's winter and there's no other shelter nearby.

[recessional]

To be frank, where "universal access" means "ONE design/setup/etc will be accessible to everyone!", it is a pipe dream. It flat out is.

To go with my own fields: it is not possible to create a "universally accessible" Storytime program. Even with the biggest budget, the best facilities, all the rest of it, one program cannot be universally accessible. Because you cannot accommodate (for example) in one program a child who's easily sensorily overloaded, highly anxious and experiences loud noises as painful, and a highly physical ADHD(hyperactive) child who needs strong sensory stimulus to maintain attention engagement.

You can't. These two children cannot be accommodated in the same program, because their needs are antithetical to each other.

However, you can make sure you have, in your facility, enough program variety that both of them can find a program to attend and benefit from. Both children can be able to access a storytime. (And you should!)

And that's a very simplistic/straightforward example, because that makes it clear; some cases are going to be a lot more difficult and complicated, but are also very subject to people going "well but you could just try HARDER!", so I tend to default to the starkest: no, there is no way to meet the needs of a child who desperately needs to be able to relax and make loud noises and be Boisterous in having fun, and a child who needs to be shielded from loud noises and people moving too fast around him in the same space. They are not compatible.

You can make sure that each child has their needs met and has access to a space to have equal access to what's available to each other? But you can't do it in the same room.

But the very first step to making sure that you're doing that program variety in your design is to own up to "there is no universal solution".

Which comes back to the antifa thing in that these people really want there to be one universal solution, usually, and are often constitutionally incapable of engaging with the reality that there isn't: that there is no One Way To Be Right. Which means they just end up sidelining and undercutting whoever doesn't fit with whatever model they've decided is Right.

Which is how you get to "autistic flapping is Oppressive!" and related bullshit.