I hate the term abelism it's almost never used in good faith, sure there are some examples of abelism being a problem but the term is so broad and vague like the term people of color, like we're lumping every single disability together.
The term neurodivergent is much better for example because at least it describes only mental and cognitive disorders.
Now as for the argument that it is somehow more important to only prioritise people who are disabled otherwise it would be eugenics that's honestly fucking stupid because simply put In a car based world we can't evacuate everyone anyway but with a good network for public transit we might get a larger number of people to safety and that's all that matters
My least favourite type of tweet is some white woman on twitter victimising herself to give herself a moral advantage, rather than say why she truly wants the society to be car based, and the reason is that cars are individualistic you ride them alone you control the environment in them, this is the true reason people prefer cars.
like we’re lumping every single disability together.
But for large parts the trifecta of being handicapped by society, the devaluation of oneself (in terms of having agency, ability, etc.), being declared morally exterminate cause of "money/a good life/costs for society" (whatever people with power decide) is what does lump everything together. There are more analyses for parts of it and ableism is not fully discussed with what I presented, but there are strong unifying elements which make it so that ableism is influencing a ton.
Neurodivergence in a similar vein is for me not a subsitute but a complementary thing, which - like ableism - has lots of friction elements in relation to a fictive idealist non existing normativity of how humas are.
Ableism is online used in a broad manner and might not fit, sometimes people accidentally see something that actually is a problem, which could highlight structural ableism (and in fact public transport as it exists is ableist in large cases, but this doesn't mean it is bad).
The person arguing isn't wrong for calling out real problems, they are wrong for paternalizing and instrumentalizing people. They are wrong for not seeing the systematic interactions, like others in this thread mentioned. Without cars there would likely not be that wild fire and not the climate catastrophe.
If you are arguing for people who can't use current public transport well, that they ought to have priority in cars I am agreeing with you. Then we are talking about human needs, but we won't get to the situation in which poor people will have good public transport or even have cars while rich won't have cars unless we have control over means of production and over the sphere of circulation.
If you are arguing for a collective societal response to bad stuff you breath in you are arguing for regulations and a consequence of that would be the destruction of sub urbs which are not efficient, you would be arguing for the end of a ton of jobs and better health equipment and power to change the conditions in which people get occupational sicknesses. That she doesn't do that quite.
I can believe that she did in fact have in the US change houses for environmental reasons, but the solution would be 15 minute cities with good public transport, not cars in sub urbs that she barely can afford.
I think people are fine with having wrong ideas, but I think the person posting on twitter would've profited from participating in socialist networks of people who are affected.
The term neurodivergent is much better for example because at least it describes only mental and cognitive disorders.
I think it is completely fine that you prefer that term. I would argue if pressed that there is nothing that is "only" mental or cognitive, but I do have some ideas of what you mean.
is that cars are individualistic you ride them alone you control the environment in them, this is the true reason people prefer cars
Is def. a large influence. Having a safe in door space to breathe and wait for public transportation would be possible, too. But in the world presented there is only a safe space when you alone control it and the public is dangerous and hostile.
I hate the term abelism it's almost never used in good faith, sure there are some examples of abelism being a problem but the term is so broad and vague like the term people of color, like we're lumping every single disability together.
The term neurodivergent is much better for example because at least it describes only mental and cognitive disorders.
Now as for the argument that it is somehow more important to only prioritise people who are disabled otherwise it would be eugenics that's honestly fucking stupid because simply put In a car based world we can't evacuate everyone anyway but with a good network for public transit we might get a larger number of people to safety and that's all that matters
My least favourite type of tweet is some white woman on twitter victimising herself to give herself a moral advantage, rather than say why she truly wants the society to be car based, and the reason is that cars are individualistic you ride them alone you control the environment in them, this is the true reason people prefer cars.
But for large parts the trifecta of being handicapped by society, the devaluation of oneself (in terms of having agency, ability, etc.), being declared morally exterminate cause of "money/a good life/costs for society" (whatever people with power decide) is what does lump everything together. There are more analyses for parts of it and ableism is not fully discussed with what I presented, but there are strong unifying elements which make it so that ableism is influencing a ton.
Neurodivergence in a similar vein is for me not a subsitute but a complementary thing, which - like ableism - has lots of friction elements in relation to a fictive idealist non existing normativity of how humas are.
Ableism is online used in a broad manner and might not fit, sometimes people accidentally see something that actually is a problem, which could highlight structural ableism (and in fact public transport as it exists is ableist in large cases, but this doesn't mean it is bad).
The person arguing isn't wrong for calling out real problems, they are wrong for paternalizing and instrumentalizing people. They are wrong for not seeing the systematic interactions, like others in this thread mentioned. Without cars there would likely not be that wild fire and not the climate catastrophe.
If you are arguing for people who can't use current public transport well, that they ought to have priority in cars I am agreeing with you. Then we are talking about human needs, but we won't get to the situation in which poor people will have good public transport or even have cars while rich won't have cars unless we have control over means of production and over the sphere of circulation.
If you are arguing for a collective societal response to bad stuff you breath in you are arguing for regulations and a consequence of that would be the destruction of sub urbs which are not efficient, you would be arguing for the end of a ton of jobs and better health equipment and power to change the conditions in which people get occupational sicknesses. That she doesn't do that quite.
I can believe that she did in fact have in the US change houses for environmental reasons, but the solution would be 15 minute cities with good public transport, not cars in sub urbs that she barely can afford.
I think people are fine with having wrong ideas, but I think the person posting on twitter would've profited from participating in socialist networks of people who are affected.
I think it is completely fine that you prefer that term. I would argue if pressed that there is nothing that is "only" mental or cognitive, but I do have some ideas of what you mean.
Is def. a large influence. Having a safe in door space to breathe and wait for public transportation would be possible, too. But in the world presented there is only a safe space when you alone control it and the public is dangerous and hostile.
Thank you for taking the time to educate me on the matter.
I think thats a personal issue, I see plenty of good faith discourse about ableism and the effects of it, maybe you're just in way too online spaces?
I need to touch some grass.