this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
108 points (94.3% liked)
Asklemmy
44173 readers
2585 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The wheelchair one (whilst obvious hyperbole) is a great example of why this rhetoric isn't useful.
Often people who say we should plan walkable cities don't consider what that would mean for wheelchair users and other disabled people, because they don't have the lived experience to think along those lines. So it would actually be super useful if someone could say "okay, but what about wheelchair users?" in a constructive way, because there are additional considerations re: pedestrianisation and public transport. Disabled people are way too often treated like an inconvenience or obstacles to progress, and that's fucking exhausting, so it's useful to have allies who ask "hey, what about disabled people tho"
The people your comment is about don't do this. As you highlight, they make things about themselves, and if anything, this makes it harder to have productive conversations about what a 'walkable city' for everyone would look like. I suspect that for many of these people, it's based on a nugget of good intentions inside a blob of insecurity and dread at the state of the world; they feel like they're not doing enough so they resort to very loudly virtue signalling in the most bizarre ways.
See?
The "whilst obvious hyperbole" bit is the clue. The two situations/comments/opinions are just examples, never happened and never will
It wouldn't have mattered what examples I'd made up, someone like you would come along and go "wELL aKShULLy"
Fucksake!
My dude, I'm agreeing with you
Edit: effectively I was saying that I agree with you that there seems to be a particular kind of person who is overly contrarian, very loud and impossible to have productive discussions with.
I felt like the wheelchair example you picked was a great example of how this happens "in the wild". I wanted to build on your comment by using that example to elaborate on how these contrarian types cause harm, even if they might seem to be concerned and well-intentioned. I found the wheelchair example to be a good one because it is actually something that I've seen happen multiple times.
I feel that your reply is an unfair characterisation of my comment. Given how the internet's communication norms can prime us to read and respond to things in an overly adversarial manner (especially as it's clear from your original comment that you've got way too much experience with silly argumentative types, so I sympathise), I am hoping that your response was based on a misinterpretation of my comment and/or me being insufficiently clear in what I originally wrote (apologies if so).