CatBus

Irony broke a few weeks back. Anyone know when they plan to get it up and running again?

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Having observed many of them perform at a VERY high level in my technical classes, I’ve wondered whether it is rightly considered a disability at all?

Well, that depends on how you define disability:

• It’s a significant difference from the norm (not neurotypical)
• It’s not transitory (i.e. not like the neurological effects of eating certain mushrooms)
• It can potentially impede or cause difficulty with day-to-day activities, without some sort of accommodation (classrooms are possibly the easiest place for them, but lunchrooms could be baffling)

Now, if you think there’s more to the definition of disability, then maybe it doesn’t fit. But the fact that someone can “pass” doesn’t make them not disabled. In fact, it can make things a lot more complicated because they still may need the accommodation, but nobody recognizes/respects that fact.

This has been a huge concern for us as our daughter has progressed through (and changed) school(s). First to get an official diagnosis, then to get services, and finally to retain services. There is sometimes the attitude that “oh, she’s doing great, she doesn’t need services anymore” when the services are a large part of the reason she’s doing so well.

Yep. That fight never ends, I’m sorry to report.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Having observed many of them perform at a VERY high level in my technical classes, I’ve wondered whether it is rightly considered a disability at all?

Well, that depends on how you define disability:

• It’s a significant difference from the norm (not neurotypical)
• It’s not transitory (i.e. not like the neurological effects of eating certain mushrooms)
• It can potentially impede or cause difficulty with day-to-day activities, without some sort of accommodation (classrooms are possibly the easiest place for them, but lunchrooms could be baffling)

Now, if you think there’s more to the definition of disability, then maybe it doesn’t fit. But the fact that someone can “pass” doesn’t make them not disabled. In fact, it can make things a lot more complicated because they still may need the accommodation, but nobody recognizes/respects that fact. And autism is really honestly not that well-defined, and it covers a huge range of people–many of whom could not pass as easily. So those in your classroom may not be representative of the whole spectrum.

Also, just in general for everyone–meet someone with a disability and talklisten to them. While I’m sure it’s important to get answers to your own questions, if you meet a deaf person and start right in with cochlear implants, you’re more likely to get punched in the face than get an answer.

Also, we are all AFAICT extrapolating from not a lot of data. I have a few deaf friends, but they are all adults without children. I’ve seen a documentary and have taken some ASL classes (and I’m pretty much shit at all languages, soak in the irony). That’s my total net exposure to the whole deaf community. I have some autistic friends, but they are all high functioning/asperger’s end of the spectrum. And I’ve seen Rain Man, and have seen a few episodes of Parenthood. That’s about it for autism and me. It’s actually been great that Jeebus has been here for this discussion, I just wish we didn’t have to make arguments-by-proxy for the deaf.

EDIT: Re: other stuff. I often use “you” conversationally, like “You’re here today, you’re gone tomorrow”, when I don’t mean literally you, but just your generic person. “One” is too stuffy. “They” too impersonal, sometimes.

And when ASL is your first language, and then you learn English, then English is your second language, with all the complexities of a second language (let me assure you, the grammar is way different, because I think ASL is derived from French–so it may actually be easier to learn French as your–dang, I did it again!–second language) Your second language could even be another sign language, which wouldn’t necessarily be much easier.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I didn’t say they were being denied the choice, I am saying that it seems like there are some deaf groups that would deny them the choice. Multiple people on here have posted about such.

I think “saying people should make a different choice” is fundamentally different than “denying people a choice.” It seems we’re not going to agree here.

I suppose it ok to advise someone not the take the cure, as long it is remains that person’s choice.

but how often does it happen that parents get the right to deny their kids the cure to something?

Cure to some, changing their identity from a deaf person to a hearing person to others. Will opting them out as a child mean they’ll be unable to take an implant when they turn 18? Nope, that choice is still out there for them to freely make–a very different scenario from Christian Scientists who don’t let their kids have antibiotics.

1. we were also talking about autism. Curing autism in order to do any good, would have to be done before brain development.

I’m not actually sure that’s the case. While autism starts to present around age 2, that’s not because the kids are neurotypical until age 2 (that fallacy is, in fact, the core argument of the antivax folks). The behaviors or neurotypical and autistic zero-to-two-year-olds are often simply too similar to distinguish. Now, there are some early-intervention-type therapies which help build skills at a young age, and that’s a different thing entirely, and early diagnosis and intervention is great. But it’s skill-building, not a cure. You’ve probably got autism as a zygote–which, yes, is technically before brain development, but probably earlier than you were thinking. And you’ve still got autism after your early intervention therapies help you more easily pass for neurotypical.

2. As for deaf people, yeah they can opt for an implant at age 18, there can be problems with that. Speech for example. In order to be able to speak normally, they would have to get the implants as a child. I think it would be much easier as a child, when they are in a school environment already. I suppose they could get the implants at 18 and still learn to speak normally, but it could take several years. Also if you deny them the implants until age 18, you deny a childhood of being able to hear. Think about that.

I’m sure they take that into consideration. I’m not sure what their answer is on that one, but it may have been covered in the documentary. Probably something along the lines of their language skills still develop normally using ASL, and lots of people have difficulty with their second language. Although that’s pretty lazy–at least grade-school-level exposure does help with picking up second languages. But it’s a common laziness, at least here in the states where it seems learning any second language is a late-teen thing, if at all.

Warbler said:

I didn’t say they were being denied the choice, I am saying that it seems like there are some deaf groups that would deny them the choice. Multiple people on here have posted about such.

I think “saying people should make a different choice” is fundamentally different than “denying people a choice.” It seems we’re not going to agree here.

but how often does it happen that parents get the right to deny their kids the cure to something?

Cure to some, changing their identity from a deaf person to a hearing person to others. Will opting them out as a child mean they’ll be unable to take an implant when they turn 18? Nope, that choice is still out there for them to freely make–a very different scenario from Christian Scientists who don’t let their kids have antibiotics.

darth_ender said:

And his disciples asked him, “Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.”

John 9:2-3

On another unrelated note, my state’s Lieutenant Governor is blind. In addition to being whip-smart, Rhodes scholar and all that, he’s also… an accomplished photographer.

Yeah, me neither. I got nothing. But good for him in spite of my awkward head scratching. Clearly the works of someone are manifest in the guy.

And yeah, I think he’s kinda wasted on the Lieutenant Governor’s office. He’s got way too much talent for such small potatoes positions.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.

This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.

And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.

How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?

That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”. Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel). Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.

I completely appreciate those who view their disabilities as identities. Much power to them.

But I’m not sure about the idea that every “problem” is an identity and thus shouldn’t be “cured.” Should people with poor vision not wear contacts (or glasses for that matter)? Should people with bad teeth not get braces?

How about this, what about transgendered people. One could argue their transgender is part of their identity. So should they be denied a sex change operation? You could argue such is a “cure”, just like allowing a deaf person to hear.

Transgender is an identity. Pressuring them to have a sex change, or shaming them into having a sex change, or withholding some other sort of accommodation just because they won’t have a sex change like a reasonable person, those would all be comparable to what we’re discussing. Someone choosing to have a sex change and then doing it? Not a problem.

Yet it seems to be a problem when it comes to the deaf person choosing to get the implants to be able to hear.

According to who? You posted the video, but who has a problem with this? I think this might be where we’re talking past each other to some degree. I’ve already said many deaf people do in fact choose cochlear implants, and that society as a whole is very supportive of this, even to the point of subtly pressuring them to make the very choice you’re saying they’re being denied. Deaf advocates aren’t preventing people from getting implants, they’re just trying to remind people choosing not to get implants is a valid choice, at a minimum, and that it’s a better choice in their opinions.

Regarding parents deciding things for their children. That happens all the time on many fronts. It’s the condition of being a minor, and has very little to do specifically with disability.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.

This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.

And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.

How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?

That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”. Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel). Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.

I completely appreciate those who view their disabilities as identities. Much power to them.

But I’m not sure about the idea that every “problem” is an identity and thus shouldn’t be “cured.” Should people with poor vision not wear contacts (or glasses for that matter)? Should people with bad teeth not get braces?

How about this, what about transgendered people. One could argue their transgender is part of their identity. So should they be denied a sex change operation? You could argue such is a “cure”, just like allowing a deaf person to hear.

Transgender is an identity. Pressuring them to have a sex change, or shaming them into having a sex change, or withholding some other sort of accommodation just because they won’t have a sex change like a reasonable person, those would all be comparable to what we’re discussing. Someone choosing to have a sex change and then doing it? Not a problem.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions?

You mentioned earlier you should learn more about autism. Just go with that 😉

I stated that badly. What I should have asked was "Are there cases where autism renders people incapable of making their own decisions.

Possibly, but not in any of the cases I’ve known (but I’m just Random Internet Dude, not Autism Specialist Dude). Younger than 18, they’re a minor, over 18 they’re good to go. The problem of course is that people with significant neurological impairment are often more hidden from view, so people don’t know about them.

And as I’m sure Frink can attest, “high functioning” is problematic label. It basically means you can often navigate the world and even pass for neurotypical. It also means when you tell people you’re autistic and need some sort of accommodation, you get the side-eye like you’re either making it up or being too demanding. Like when Rex Tillerson wants everyone in the State Department to know he doesn’t like to make eye contact, and the liberal blogs go off on him and I think to myself, “Yeah, like that.”

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.

What about curing a disability?

As I think I’ve said before, in their lexicon, disabilities are identities. Deafness is a subset of disabilities. Therefore, from that viewpoint, deafness is an identity.

DominicCobb said:

However, it’s hard to imagine everyone with a disability thinks the same way. What about the deaf people who want to hear? Should “cures” be shunned by the larger community even when some would welcome them?

At least WRT cochlear implants, many deaf people do in fact opt for the implants, and (at least as far as I know–I’m not Mr. Cochlear Implant) the cures are not shunned by the larger community at all. A large part (maybe most) of the deaf community treats them like poison, but almost all of the hearing community treats them like “We fixed your deafness. You’re welcome.” And later “We have no idea why you’re being so unreasonable, just get the implants and stop asking us for interpreters. It’s not necessary anymore.”

Warbler said:

Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions?

You mentioned earlier you should learn more about autism. Just go with that 😉

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.

This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.

And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.

How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?

That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”. Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel). Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.

Warbler said:

But deaf people would still have the problem of not being able to hear.

Not to jump straight to crude jokes, but it applies. Everybody has problems. Yes, even if everyone could sign and every phone has a visual ring indicator and so on, people would still have the problem of not being able to hear. And some people would have the trouble of being an asshole (seriously not aimed at anyone, but the concept works so run with it). Deafness is a pretty small problem. Hell, I have combination skin (does anyone remember that commercial?), that’s a problem too.

Warbler said:

I guess I am not able to understand how a mental difficult can be considered a superpower. But I do have to say that you did not answer my question. Are you saying that he wouldn’t have his nerve and creativity without the autism?

You’d have to ask him; I don’t even know that person. Temple Grandin is an example of a person who feels she owes much of her livelihood to tapping the potential of her autism that would not otherwise be available. Most people only know of autism from Rain Man, and there’s a lot more to it than Wapner at 4. They see it not as a mental difficulty–it’s a neurological difference that can lead to social difficulties. That said, it’s an ill-defined “spectrum”, so even that statement was dumbing it down too much for my tastes.

Warbler said:

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members. And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.

Warbler said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Warbler said:

Was Jesus wrong to make the lame walk and the blind see?

The ex-leper sketch from ‘Life of Brian’ covers that pretty well 😉…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTJFwwJ7VF8

The ex-leper forgets that now that he is cures, he doesn’t have to beg for money. He can get a job and earn it.

Some people might not want to be “cured” because it’s part of who they are. It might not define them but it’s an important part.

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

I was watching that Oscar nominated Documentary ‘A Life Animated’ the other week about this guy Owen Suskind (he has Autism) and how he uses Disney films to help him relate to the world. At the end he delivers a speech on Autism to a lecture theater and writes an animated short to express himself. I know I wouldn’t have the nerve to do the first, or the creativity to do the second.

So are you saying he wouldn’t have the nerve or creativity without autism?

Many autistic people treat autism like a superpower, which they can tap to accomplish lots of useful things. It just happens that the world is also littered with Kryptonite.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

One more thing:

CatBus said:

But then there’s things like cochlear implants. They don’t remove the barriers for deafness, they remove the deafness, which is a different thing entirely.

But doesn’t removing the deafness also remove the barriers?

Sure, and according the many deaf advocates, it does it in exactly the same way curing blackness would remove problems with hailing cabs, counting on the police, and getting through in-person job interviews. That’s the core argument.

Maybe this going to offend and show by ignorance, but blackness isn’t a disease or disability. Deafness is a disability.

To which they’d say: You can be born black, you can be born deaf. You can become deaf, you can become Mormon. You communicate in Spanish, you communicate in ASL. The difficulties you face in life, with people understanding you, are very much the same. The problem in all of those cases isn’t with who you are. Disabilities are different things than diseases. In their lexicon, blackness, disabilities, Mormonism, and Spanish-speaking-a-tivity are in one group. Diseases are another thing entirely.

Warbler said:

One more thing:

CatBus said:

But then there’s things like cochlear implants. They don’t remove the barriers for deafness, they remove the deafness, which is a different thing entirely.

But doesn’t removing the deafness also remove the barriers?

Sure, and according the many deaf advocates, it does it in exactly the same way curing blackness would remove problems with hailing cabs, counting on the police, and getting through in-person job interviews. That’s the core argument.

No, Warb, I don’t think any less of you. This is actually pretty wonky deep-level stuff here, and jumping from zero background into the deep end is a kinda hard transition–in spite of my attempts to dumb it down, but you asked 😉

I referenced a documentary on cochlear implants: for a more nuanced and detailed discussion, I recommend giving it a try. It’s called Sound and Fury. There are probably others too. There’s complexity to the arguments certainly. But since it’s so far outside the mainstream culture, you’re doing well simply to know there’s an argument at all.

As for Jesus curing the lepers… Bloody do-gooder. (Life of Brian reference)

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Fuck everybody.

😉

Well, autism isn’t something that you can “cure” in somebody. Now, if it were focused on determining specific causes and means of prevention, that would be different.

How do you know we won’t be able to cure in the future(maybe a couple hundred years from now)?

Well, to answer the question seriously and completely requires a bit of a historical disability rights primer. You don’t have to agree with this 100%, I’m just presenting this as background information.

The easiest gateway to understanding is to consider the deaf community, cochlear implants, etc. Deafness can be caused by maladies, but it’s not a malady in itself. Some proportion of the human population has always been deaf, and the deaf community considers itself simply part of the natural variation in humanity–not that much different than variations in height–there’s a bell curve, but not sitting at the average is simply not a problem that needs addressing. That’s not to say that a society designed for the middle of the bell curve doesn’t present difficulties for them, but those difficulties are the things to be managed, not the people. i.e. tall/short people may have a hard time finding clothes, being at the right height for photo booths, etc, but those are problems that can be managed. Similarly, deaf people can run into issues talking to people who don’t understand their language. The solutions in those scenarios would be teaching more people to sign, using interpreters, or–technology FTW–texting.

But then there’s things like cochlear implants. They don’t remove the barriers for deafness, they remove the deafness, which is a different thing entirely. You don’t have to know very much about deaf culture to see how this presents a real threat to deaf identity. There’s at least one documentary about the bitter and divisive struggle that has raged over cochlear implants. To deaf community activists, it’s very much like someone invented a cure for blackness, and sells it with the promise of how much easier it will be when you can hail cabs, get help from the police, and make it through in-person job interviews. All of these promises quite possibly being true, but missing the larger point.

Autism is in a similar place. It’s not neurotypical, but it’s within the natural variation of humanity. Many of the problems are simply with interacting with the society at large, and can be addressed individually without changing the identity of the person.

Anyway, that’s the background on that. Again, there’s a whole lot of wild twists and cul-de-sacs I avoided to keep things as simple as possible. So basically, “curing autism” is not something some people would want to pursue even if it were scientifically feasible, but “things that make being autistic in a non-autistic world a lot easier” are.

TV’s Frink said:

4 part series on our Liar-In-Chief from the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-our-dishonest-president/

“Nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck” will probably go down with “Nobody anticipated the breach of the levees” and “Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated” as far as delusional statements go.

Meanwhile, I’m predicting McConnell will go nuclear the second the filibuster gets in his way. Which is fine–the filibuster was a meaningless fig leaf anyway if that’s how he was going to treat it.

CatBus said:

Wow. Okay. Moving right along.

So there’s a saying (I’m too young to know if it’s true) that in 1969, Nixon voters could be found everywhere. In 1974, they were getting scarce. And by 1976, you couldn’t find anyone who’d voted for Nixon.

HA Goodman started an interesting trend. At first, he was just a fairly transparent Republican operative, right? This libertarian Republican who decided to jump right into supporting a Socialist, but rarely actually says very much about his newfound love for those lefty policies–instead he pretty much does nothing but attack the Democratic Party. But “from the left”, get it? Not from the right. Maybe he’ll convince an unsuspecting reporter or voter to think he’s not a Republican, and try to initiate a narrative about the chasm between Bernie and Hillary. You’ve got Goodman’s followers booing Bernie at the convention to, uh, show their love for Bernie (or something, I’m sure it made sense to them). That made some headlines, and it kinda worked for a while, successfully drawing the media’s focus away from the actual lack of any serious split between Bernie and Hillary.

But then something odd happened after the election. He (and others) kept going, he’s still doing his Bernie supporter schtick. And this is what’s interesting about it. Using Goodman’s precedent, Trump voters can pretend to be Bernie supporters, as a means of hiding their shame. Now I’m sure most Trump voters aren’t ashamed, but already there’s this small sad tribe of Trump voters who can’t come out and be honest with the world. Are they, like the disappearing Nixon voters, the wave of the future?

Looks like these ashamed Trump voters pretending to be Bernie supporters have a new target. Surprise! It’s Bernie! Who could have seen that coming?