MNHQ .. Can we talk about disability bashing?

[Brownsugarshortbread]

Over the years i have posted on and enjoyed MN.
Sadly there seems to be a growing culture of it being okay to have a go at disabilities, those who claim DLA and those who's children have 'invisable' disabilities such as ADHD and ADD.
The terms 'freak' and 'scrounger' have been batted around and comments from some posters IMO certainly boarder on harrassment and discrimination.

When certain posts or posters have been reported, some have been removed, yet a lot haven't.

And while I agree with free speech, these types of comment or reaction to these comments, are not an education for those bigoted posters. Nor do those whose lives are touched by disability wish to be used to educate those posters.

Disability Harassment

is unwanted behaviour based on disability,
impairment or additional need. Such behaviour may include comments that are patronising or objectionable to the recipient or which creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for people with disabilities. Disability harassment includes inappropriate reference to disability, unwelcome discussion of the impact of disability, refusal to work with and exclusion of people with disabilities from social events or meetings.

now there is another thread, are they breeding?

Where Shoesy?

MrsDe - ah well, fair play, You need that little bit of mystery.

one about mobility cars, i have reported as it isn't educational just bashing.

I've reported that poster several times, shoesy

seems they have form, why don't they get told to stop?

well done mn hq for proving me wrong and thank you,

Oh heck re dodgy casserole Justa.
Thanks, MN. Appreciated.

I do hope you won't be aghast with me for thinking aout loud a little bit about the disabled people/bankers comment. I don't have knowledge of the context of the post, so I'm taking the words just on exactly their own terms.

If I change it to "bankers contribute more to society than people with mental illness," then I can relate it to myself a little more easily, since I'm a long-term depression sufferer. And it doesn't seem to me to be the sort of point that is intrinsically beyond the pale on a discussion site. It might (depending on context) indicate ignorance, lack of empathy, etc. But equally it might be used to make an entirely reasonable point, albeit in a deliberately provocative manner; e.g. the point that society's obligations towards some of its members stem from different sorts of considerations than its obligations to some other members. And it doesn't imply that no banker suffers from depression -- the groups can intersect and still each be identified as a group.

If it was made in the mental health topic, which is really for mutual support, then it would be far less acceptable than if it was made in "In the news" or Politics, where people might legitimately discuss such issues as the nature of our obligations to various categories of citizen. You can't reall discuss matters of social justice without a willlingness to look at the differing sources of obligation to very many groups. Would it be okay to make that remark, eg, about bankers and lone parents?

Though I utterly support the need to avoid disablism, and I am entirely open to being told I am wrong on this issue, it does seem to me that we should be wary of too great a policing of discussion.

I feel very anxious making htis point and I am sorry if it causes offence or seems grossly imperceptive of the feelings of those of you who are dealing with family-members' disability. I appreciate that depression is far less of an issue than the majority of disabilities, and that of course it is quite likely to supervene on top of disability for a lot of people. I just wanted to use that example as a way of seeing the issues in a first-personal way.

You see, I think that post completely breached the harassment rules outlined above: impairment or additional need. Such behaviour may include comments that are patronising or objectionable to the recipient or which creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for people with disabilities. Disability harassment includes inappropriate reference to disability, unwelcome discussion of the impact of disability, refusal to work with and exclusion of people with disabilities from social events or meetings.

Did it create a hostile environmennt- well yes, I felt so. Unwelcome discussion? Again to me yes.

But what I abhored most was the black and white references it made. Bankers are this and valuable: diswabled people are however tis and less o.

Can disabled people be bankers/ Yes. can they be independent? of course- it's a wide term. Are all disabled people claiming benefits? no, not at all. I ahve no plans to claim for either of my two who are being assessed: that does not make them more valuable than the ones already diagnosed.
Are there forms of value other than economic? absolutely. Do people not in work contribute to economics in ways other than taxes? Well, let's see- David Cameron seems fairly happy with this whole Big Society lark; as an ex vollie manager I know that many people within that have a disability (including MH)- it's encouraged as a steping stone to work after all. And here plenty of LD schemes are in economically productive palcements such as growing veg for a profit making council run cafe, or back home running a cafe.

It's quite simply a wrong statement that peddles misinformation about disability.

I appreciate that you don't want to respond on this justa, and so there is no need to answer. But I just wanted to come back on the "lumping all disabled people together without any qualification is stereotypical and prejudiced " remark.

The answer I would make to that is that naturally we have to abstract to that category for some purposes and not others. For example on this thread we are routinely using the category of "all disabled people" because that is the category that is the taget of disablism and the source of out obligation to avoid it. It is entirely compatible with retaining an awareness of the vast differences between people within that group. It may well be that the particular context of the remark you had deleted made that abstraction really wrong and offensive, though.

The context was odd actually; a singular statement on quite remarkable (KMO) malice out of the blue. There was no otehr words in the post other than this group is (what was the term? worthwhile, make a contribuiution, soemthing liek that) and this group do not.

Was the poster a troll?

Quite effing obviously! Everything I see him post is nasty and bigoted.

Can I do owt about it? nope.

Clearly I shouldn't really comment on the post without having seen it: I take your word of course that the particular comment was unacceptable.

You know what? mostly it was odd. Bizarre ecen, A poster I have never encountered before appears with one line about disabled people and the habituates threads on the topic.

Just- weird.

There are some 11 million disabled people in the UK. 3 million claim some form of disability living allowance. 8 million do not. The assumption that disabled people do not contribute to society in the way that a relative handful of bankers do is absolutely unacceptable and I'm very glad that it's been removed.

(I don't, of course, doubt for a second the claim that "bankers contribute more to society than disabled people" is wrong. I only wanted to ask questions very tentatively about whether it should be deleted.)

The 'quick acid test' of statements is to insert the word "black" where the other Protected Status word is. If it would read wrongly to say "Bankers contribute more to society than black people", then it's equally wrong to say it about gay people, disabled people, women, etc. Especially in a debate about whether disabled people are more likely to be dishonest layabouts than other people (patently not - every sort of person is equally likely or unlikely to be dishonest, or workshy).

didn't see the quote in situ at all so not qualified to comment on that but amberlight, the power of your substitution depends on your definition of contribute, surely? an economical statistician may very well be able to prove that bankers contribute more (if the definition relates to currency movement) than black people, even allowing for the subsection of the venn diagram that includes black bankers.

yes it should of been deleted and I am glad it was.
the idea that disabled people do not contribute is crap.

Aitxh absolutely

there was no in situ for the quote in that the quote was all that was there. The rest of the thread remains anyway for all to see.

Buut it did not say economic input or anything else- just banker contribute more than disabled people

Which clearly is rot

isn't it more incomplete than untrue, though? if the terms of the contribution were not defined? what happened on the thread, did anyone ask for clarification? (or was it clearly just a troll?)

"Bankers contribute more than ... (teachers/doctors/people on benefits/etc)" is a standard piece of shorthand used by people who want to equate "contribution" with "financial/economic contribution" in order to erode the perception of value of public services. It seems pretty likely that the comment meant "financial/economic contribution"

It is a glib and seedy comment and I haven't a clue whether disabled people as a group "contribute" less, economically speaking, than bankers as a group (I don't seem to remember disabled people as being much implicated in the 2008 financial crisis), but the remark is of a typical sort in discussions about social justice.

Perhaps the essential problem lies in MN having been promoted as a site for political discussion, which often rests uneasily alongside its role as a parenting support site.