this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
332 points (96.6% liked)
Chronic Illness
244 readers
2 users here now
A community/support group for chronically ill people. While anyone is welcome, our number one priority is keeping this a safe space for chronically ill people.
This is a support group, not a place for people to spout their opinions on disability.
Rules
-
Be excellent to each other
-
Absolutely no ableism. This includes harmful stereotypes: lazy/freeloaders etc
-
No quackery. Does an up-to date major review in a big journal or a major government guideline come to the conclusion you’re claiming is fact? No? Then don’t claim it’s fact. This applies to potential treatments and disease mechanisms.
-
No denialism or minimisation This applies challenges faced by chronically ill people.
-
No psychosomatising psychosomatisation is a tool used by insurance companies and governments to blame physical illnesses on mental problems, and thereby saving money by not paying benefits. There is no concrete proof psychosomatic or functional disease exists with the vast majority of historical diagnoses turning out to be biomedical illnesses medicine has not discovered yet. Psychosomatics is rooted in misogyny, and consisted up until very recently of blaming women’s health complaints on “hysteria”.
Did your post/comment get removed? Before arguing with moderators consider that the goal of this community is to provide a safe space for people suffering from chronic illness. Moderation may be heavy handed at times. If you don’t like that, find or create another community that prioritises something else.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, I completely disagree.
This for me is a position on my own right to determine my life, including ending it if certain conditions are not met. It is a position that affects and will affect a single person only, the one supporting it.
So in a sense it is something closer to assisted suicide and euthanasia in general. "Any disability would make my life not worth living" is different than saying "any disability makes life not worth living". It's a completely subjective issue, that can also change over time, and it's obvious that there are people who completely disagree and have wonderful meaningful lives worth living while being disabled.
Since this is not what I mean, nor advocate, this is in no way on me. The fact that other people with other perspectives act in a different way is not a reason me for to suppress my opinion. I mean no harm to anybody, I support welfare and public healthcare, I support also accessibility in all the different forms because I believe society should provide all tools and conditions possible to anybody to live their lives in the best possible way.
Also, I personally don't have such a hard-line, I think for my own personal perspective only certain disabilities would be reasons to determine my life is not worth living anymore, but I can accept that for other people the bar can be in a different place.
I mean okay if I read this in good faith I think you are kind of addressing this weirdly.
You can say something ableist without „meaning to do harm“. It really just is a phrase that has been used in really grotesque fashion in the past and we do live in a context. We might just have a fundamental disagreement on how we think about discourse.
As you have said you could make the same point without using this exact phrase so I firstly don’t believe that your opinion is suppressed on the topic. Secondly I think as able-bodied people sometimes it just is not our right or place to say that language that has hurt marginalised people can be used by us or redeemed for that matter because we just talk about ourselves.
Again yes I think you should be empowered to control your life and the end of it. And there are many ways to say this instead of: Id rather die than be (insert marginalised group).
Maybe as a different minority I can only offer that it just feels icky to me if another group wants to use words that have been used against me because that’s the way they want to express themselves. That’s why I engaged with your question in good faith
Look, if the problem is the expression, I don't care really for it. English is not my first language, I have no need to say this to anybody really, and I have no problem expressing my thought in another way.
All I care is the semantic and the underlying principle.
So yeah, I won't stomp my foot to defend my right to express my thought with that sentence (to be honest, not a fan of policing language this way). I will simply defend my right to express the underlying opinion, in whichever way is acceptable.