Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I would assume that first and foremost it's that, as the old saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And disabled people and their advocates aren't squeaky enough.
Cynically, I think there's another explanation...
I think a lot of activism doesn't actually generate meaningful results. To some significant degree, it just serves as something for people to fight over and politicians to fundraise and campaign on.
To serve those purposes though, it has to be controversial - there has to be a basis on which one party can take a stance in favor and the other a stance opposed. And another handy feature of that sort of activism is that it doesn't have to actually be enacted, and in fact, it's better for the politicians if it's not. That means that the ones who supported it can fundraise and run merely on having supported it and on the need to counter the evil other party who opposed it, while those who opposed it can fundraise and run merely on having opposed it and on the need to counter the evil other party who proposed it. And since no money was spent on any program, that's that much more money the politicians can funnel to their cronies. It's basically free publicity with a bit of "Let's you and them fight" mixed in.
And LGBT might as well have been tailor-made for that exact purpose.
But with something like advocacy for the disabled, there's no basis on which either party could dare oppose it, so there's nothing to fight over, and worse yet, if it's proposed, there's no excuse for not passing it, which means they'd have to pay for it, and that's money that they'd rather be funneling to their cronies.
So politicians mostly just ignore it.