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

[recessional]

Because really effective anti-ablist work is about as old as I am. Barely. (There is a much longer history and they were very important! But they were also incredibly hampered, limited by circumstance and difficulty to very specific areas, and had limited successes.)

Because as recently as twenty years ago disabled people just disappeared and the vast majority of people knew, if they knew anyone, one otherwise totally cognitively normal person who used a wheelchair due to an injury or amputation.

And because being other than ablist requires not only being aware of the issue and wanting to deal with it but also fully and completely grappling with issues of conditional privilege, competing and mutually exclusive access needs, and all the other wrinkles that most people would really rather . . . not. Or would rather consign to "okay but I have THREE axes of oppression and you only have two, so I win."

/cynicism

[alexseanchai]

It was rhetorical, but yeah. All that.

[recessional]

Yeah and I'm mostly bitter, mind.

[the_rck]

Competing access needs are hard. They can make me feel alienated from some parts of the anti-ablist community because I keep seeing people stating the accommodations that help them specifically are obviously the the ones everyone should be concerned about.

I'm thinking of a post I read a while back that pretty much said that no one, ever, should buy or rent a place that wasn't wheelchair/scooter accessible. I commented that, to find such a thing in this town, we'd have to either spend three times as much or move to where there's no mass transit and quite likely both. I can't drive. I will never be able to drive. Mass transit is a fundamental access issue for me and was our primary criterion in house shopping. Not one of the houses we saw was wheelchair accessible or capable of being modified to be.

The points the blogger was making about things like ramps and having the bathroom and the kitchen on the same floor are vastly important, but they're not the only accessibility issues for all people with disabilities.

[recessional]

Oh god my conflicts with the Community let me show you them. And yes this is a huge one.

And yeah even supposedly specifically anti ablist activist circles struggle like fuck with this, so I mean.

[the_rck]

There's also a certain amount of economic/class conflict in this because the reality is that most people buying a house at the bottom of the market are fighting to get good wiring and roofs that don't leak and an absence of asbestos and radon and... If you find something that's not going to fall down around you or cost you tens of thousands two years down the road, you end up compromising on a lot of things you want but can currently survive without.

Apart from structural soundness, the two things we wouldn't compromise on were no more than four blocks to a bus stop and having a bedroom large enough to hold our king sized bed (my husband's 6'2" and can't fit on a queen or double without his feet hanging off) with enough space to walk on three sides of it. That took us a full year of constant searching. The first two realtors we worked with thought we were too picky.

[recessional]

Well, yes.

There is something utterly absurd, to me, in demanding that people prioritize accommodating the needs of people who don't live there in the choice of their own dwelling space.

This is bullshit.

Now, changing the GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CULTURE AND LAWS so that these things are considered at the design stage? This is a different conversation. So is talking about public spaces.

But with people living in the real world, as it is, the absolute reasonable first priority in terms of accommodation for your home is your needs - be they psychological, transportational, physical, economic, energy, stamina, ability to give a fuck, whatever.

Not some hypothetical person with a scooter. Not even your friend with a scooter: it's not their home, it's your home. Anyone who frames the world differently is merely asking me to trade the existing tyranny for one that benefits THEM more, personally, and screw that.

(I have strong feelings about this sort of thing, but then, some of my base philosophical positions actually ground hard in radical personal autonomy, which is surprising to some people.)

[naath]

not to mention that if I buy the accessible home SOMEONE WHO NEEDS IT can't have it... yes, it would be better if more houses were accessible, but they aren't and we collectively aren't about to bulldoze most of our housing stock when there is insufficient housing.

[kaberett]

Yeah, I've been living in London since 2013 and I am only just about to move into accommodation that has proper level access in which I can (probably!) reliably breathe in a way that feels safe and secure for my mental health. And that's out in zone 5. So.

[brainwane]

Yeah.

I find it really hard to share my thoughts about competing access needs in asynchronous one-to-many communications because it's so hard for me to check in with my audience and make sure I've adequately set context & constrained, e.g., the kinds of events or job roles I'm talking about, ensured we all understand I'm talking about "and" rather than "instead of", and so on. In synchronous conversation, or not-too-asynchronous conversation, I can check in with my conversators, and listen to course corrections in case I've made a bad assumption, mutually choose to expand or constrain the axis or job or event we're talking about, and do trust-building way better.

I am grateful for people who will share their views about competing access needs in asynchronous, one-to-many communication media, so I can read/listen and learn. I appreciate all the views I've read here.

[recessional]

It's a very tough subject. My thoughts are mostly "do what you can with what you have and just flat realize that there will never, ever be a universally accessible space/plan/method, so you will always be adjusting, adapting and making the best of, and as best you can inform and empower people to make adjustments and choices to suit their needs". (And also that it's very, very important - as I realize in retrospect that often people use "do what you can with what you have" to mean "I'm not going to bother"; I don't, I use it to mean exactly what it says.)

Also that if people aren't genuinely approaching the whole thing with good faith then it's gonna get ugly real fast.

But I do feel that part of the unwillingness/failure of communities to try to integrate ability as an axis has to do with the fact that once you take it on you can't pretend this isn't a major issue, factor and consideration. And it complicates the whole landscape.

[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.

[vass]

I'm thinking of a post I read a while back that pretty much said that no one, ever, should buy or rent a place that wasn't wheelchair/scooter accessible.

*bitter lol* There's a rental affordability crisis in my entire country, and a very, very serious shortage of accessible rental housing, affordable or otherwise. At the moment if you rent then you take any apartment you can fucking get, even if it's a shithole and the commute is beyond ridiculous. And even before things got so bad (the last ten years or so) wheelchair users themselves already could not get suitable accommodation because there were not enough accessible homes to go around, and that's only gotten worse. I have a friend who nearly ended up homeless waiting on the crisis housing list.

Fuck Elodie (yes, I remember that post and who wrote it too.)

[the_rck]

This was on a pro author's blog. She responded reasonably when I commented, but pretty much all of the comments were very much about how wrong it was for anyone to buy/rent a place that wasn't accessible.

I also pointed out that, as someone with a severe cat allergy that causes asthma attacks that I can't treat because they stopped making the medication I could use, I have a lot of friends and relatives I can't visit. They've all chosen something completely optional that cuts off my access.

I have never told someone that they shouldn't get a cat or that they should get rid of those they have. That isn't just because I recognize that cats are part of the family. Getting/keeping a cat is something that is good for not-me people. Unless we're sharing living space, my needs aren't the priority.

I can and do, however, ask that people find a way to be wearing clothes that haven't been exposed to cats before they hug me or sit on my upholstered furniture.

[niqaeli]

1990. Is when the US got the fucking ADA. Which was a pittance, and gets trampled all the time, but the point is both of us, neither of us All That Old, were not only born but self-aware children. When the US passed federal legislation acknowledging disabled people HAVE some rights.

I can't speak to the history in Canada and the UK, I honestly haven't had reason to research the legal history in either, but. Yeah, it's very fair to say it's only in the last 20-30 years that we've seen effective anti-ablist work. It's honestly only the last 10 I've seen it getting any kind of serious traction.

[recessional]

We're similar. We have the Charter and its applications rather than a specific Act but it's a similar time frame.

Just, you know. I do not want to ignore the work done by advocates in things like the Deaf community or the schools for the blind or what have you. But in terms of "disabled rights" as any kind of cohesive thing and especially when it comes to cognitive stuff and mental illness....yeah. We're genuinely more than fifty years younger, as it were, than any other group in this stuff.

[the_rck]

There's a reason I still list 'reasonable accommodation' as an interest in my profile. It's one of the interests in plain type that isn't a link, so I guess no one else lists it.