gutsyfemme:

wtfitsclurrqzo:

tommyxvx:

Can we acknowledge that certain shit isn’t ableism? That the term has become this catchall for anyone losing an argument on the internet? That an otherwise valid concept has been hijacked by self-diagnosed preteens who split their time…

___

Can we critically analyze the reasons why people are more or less “intelligent”, maybe for reasons of education, class, and social status?

These are disadvantages, not disabilities and capacity for critical thought isn’t inherently dependent on education. We’re talking about what is largely common sense, the ability to sift through bullshit. Plus, with this audience it’s hardly an issue of available information. If you can rattle off the Oxford definitions of various forms of oppression, you should be able to understand what is and is not encompassed by it.

Can we acknowledge that a capitalist society constructed around people (re: bodies) being as productive as possible is inevitably going to clash with those who are not able-bodied or those who experience the world differently?

This is the “valid concept” I’m talking about. I fully agree, brick-and-mortar capitalism requires able-bodies. That 100% fits the ableism definition. This doesn’t really add anything to the conversation.

Can we acknowledge the class bullshit inherent in any criticism of a “self-diagnosis” (and conversely, the idealization of the professional medical establishment as the only “real” disagnosis)?

Class bullshit? Again, anyone reading this isn’t culpable of anything outlined above because of any disparity in opportunity, they’ve just seen other people use certain disabilities to excuse practically anything and they think they exhibit some fractional version of a symptom or two and think they’re equally intellectually beyond reproach because of it.