Even if it is, you are giving pretty uncharitable reading… Your post reads more like defending disabled people owning slaves than any abelism from RGB(which I don’t think is your point). Given how much defense of gig industries I have seen on the basis of “helping the disabled” I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some discourse that is unironic in “well they needed slaves”.
Also I have seen tons of discourse on “disability isn’t an excuse for racism and general assholery they are just racists assholes” (including on hexbear)
Well, here’s what happened. I clicked rhe wrong reply box. I was defending your position here. This was meant as a reply to dustcommie. I’ll repost in the right place, lemme know when you’ve read this so I csn delete after
No you didn’t click the wrong box, your comment was posted in reply to dustcommie. I just wanted to make sure that I understood your meaning correctly. Thanks for clarifying for me!
I am not entirely sure which point(because I barely made a point lol), guessing it is the “defending disabled people owning slaves” which was more a point on reading what people are saying and putting it into a greater context. If this was not hexbear, and I was not taking into account the greater discussion, I think reading what LeninWeave wrote as defense of disabled people owning slaves would actually make a lot more sense than BRG being abelist. Jumping to BRG being ableist felt very much like ignoring the overall conversation.
The point I probably should have made but didn’t really is I think it is just rather dismissive and restrcive to essentially say that an event starting from tourretes can’t grow into a larger discussion on what black people deal with, and essentially being policed on how they have to act or else they are being ableist. Yes BRG is being hyperbolic, but it fits into a larger discussion so I think it is unfair to say BRG is just drawing a straight line and equivocating these two. I will forgive BRG for not writing a nuanced dialectic, historical, materialist treaties on the interaction between race and (various) disabilities in racist ableist capitalist society and instead writing a shitposty tweet in relation to larger conversation happening in black spaces(just scrolling through what he has retweeted it seems clear that is what is happening to me).
The point I probably should have made but didn’t really is I think it is just rather dismissive and restrcive to essentially say that an event starting from tourretes can’t grow into a larger discussion on what black people deal with, and essentially being policed on how they have to act or else they are being ableist.
This is an excellent and completely fair point. As I said (I think) in another comment, it’s possible I’m missing some context that this is a tweet in reply to some other racist statement someone made. It’s fair to say that black people’s concerns are often dismissed or they are often policed in how they express them, that’s absolutely 100% true.
But there’s also a lot of ableism in the context of the conversation this tweet is participating in. BRG is a leftist with (presumably) a strong understanding of theory around these kinds of issues, not a random person. It’s irresponsible at least IMO to just fire it off like that without context or explanation included, and it’s not just white disabled people who are harmed by the discourse around this kind of disability.
Well, he does have retweets about (black) disabled people. He is well aware of how mistreated they can be(and his audience). I will be honest I do mostly disagree with BRG being irresponsible but I think I will reflect on this and think about it from some different angles. I do have work, so won’t be available but might respond in a day depending on if my thought crystalize
I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me like this. I can’t guarantee I’ll have the energy to reply when you do, but I’ll try even though it might not be immediate.
Though there’s a chance this thread will end up locked, I suppose.
My interpretation is that it’s a sarcastic attempt to liken the two following ideas.
A person with Tourette’s isn’t saying slurs because they’re racist (which is correct).
A person can’t be held accountable for owning slaves because they needed help due to a disability (this is absurd).
The implication that those are at all similar seems very ableist to me. Of course, it’s possible I’ve misinterpreted it, which is the problem with this kind of “hot take” Twitter bait method of communication.
Also, does BRG use they/them? I wasn’t aware. If so I should edit my other comment.
No, I don’t know what BRG uses, I was using they/them to be gender neutral (no pronouns in bio either).
If that’s the comparison, then yeah that’s ableist, but I think it’s hard to tell in part due to the sheer absurdity and also the fact that the “disabled slaver” thing is a meme like I said before. You might be right though.
also the fact that the “disabled slaver” thing is a meme like I said before.
Oh, I didn’t realize this. Still, I don’t see how bringing it up in this context (the tweet is definitely about the BAFTA awards, based on their timeline) can not be ableist, unless it was responding to some specific racist point someone else made and there’s no indication of that that I can see.
At minimum I agree that it was very irresponsible, since the more optimistic interpretation still hinges on them neglecting to give context, which they really have no reason not to.
Sadly, I think this in reference to the recent BAFTA incident.
Even if it is, you are giving pretty uncharitable reading… Your post reads more like defending disabled people owning slaves than any abelism from RGB(which I don’t think is your point). Given how much defense of gig industries I have seen on the basis of “helping the disabled” I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some discourse that is unironic in “well they needed slaves”.
Also I have seen tons of discourse on “disability isn’t an excuse for racism and general assholery they are just racists assholes” (including on hexbear)
I don’t see what else it could be. I had a quick look at their profile, they’ve been posting/RTing a lot about it.
Perhaps. I’m open to being wrong about this if there’s something else they have said that gives this more context.
Yes, of course that’s not my point. Nothing excuses owning another human being. I expanded on my interpretation here.
I think you would have to intentionally misinterpret what was said to get that take given the context of the thread it was posted in
You mean to interpret my point as “actually disabled people should be allowed to own slaves”? I agree that it’s an absurd interpretation.
However, in defense of dustcommie, dustcommie’s comment does acknowledge that (with “which I don’t think is your point”).
Well, here’s what happened. I clicked rhe wrong reply box. I was defending your position here. This was meant as a reply to dustcommie. I’ll repost in the right place, lemme know when you’ve read this so I csn delete after
No you didn’t click the wrong box, your comment was posted in reply to dustcommie. I just wanted to make sure that I understood your meaning correctly. Thanks for clarifying for me!
I’d clarify further but it doesnt feel appropriate to until dustcommunist has a chance to chime in. This is friendly ground here.
I am not entirely sure which point(because I barely made a point lol), guessing it is the “defending disabled people owning slaves” which was more a point on reading what people are saying and putting it into a greater context. If this was not hexbear, and I was not taking into account the greater discussion, I think reading what LeninWeave wrote as defense of disabled people owning slaves would actually make a lot more sense than BRG being abelist. Jumping to BRG being ableist felt very much like ignoring the overall conversation.
The point I probably should have made but didn’t really is I think it is just rather dismissive and restrcive to essentially say that an event starting from tourretes can’t grow into a larger discussion on what black people deal with, and essentially being policed on how they have to act or else they are being ableist. Yes BRG is being hyperbolic, but it fits into a larger discussion so I think it is unfair to say BRG is just drawing a straight line and equivocating these two. I will forgive BRG for not writing a nuanced dialectic, historical, materialist treaties on the interaction between race and (various) disabilities in racist ableist capitalist society and instead writing a shitposty tweet in relation to larger conversation happening in black spaces(just scrolling through what he has retweeted it seems clear that is what is happening to me).
This is an excellent and completely fair point. As I said (I think) in another comment, it’s possible I’m missing some context that this is a tweet in reply to some other racist statement someone made. It’s fair to say that black people’s concerns are often dismissed or they are often policed in how they express them, that’s absolutely 100% true.
But there’s also a lot of ableism in the context of the conversation this tweet is participating in. BRG is a leftist with (presumably) a strong understanding of theory around these kinds of issues, not a random person. It’s irresponsible at least IMO to just fire it off like that without context or explanation included, and it’s not just white disabled people who are harmed by the discourse around this kind of disability.
Well, he does have retweets about (black) disabled people. He is well aware of how mistreated they can be(and his audience). I will be honest I do mostly disagree with BRG being irresponsible but I think I will reflect on this and think about it from some different angles. I do have work, so won’t be available but might respond in a day depending on if my thought crystalize
I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me like this. I can’t guarantee I’ll have the energy to reply when you do, but I’ll try even though it might not be immediate.
Though there’s a chance this thread will end up locked, I suppose.
deleted by creator
Can you say more to connect these two ideas? What do you think they are actually trying to say?
My interpretation is that it’s a sarcastic attempt to liken the two following ideas.
The implication that those are at all similar seems very ableist to me. Of course, it’s possible I’ve misinterpreted it, which is the problem with this kind of “hot take” Twitter bait method of communication.
Also, does BRG use they/them? I wasn’t aware. If so I should edit my other comment.
No, I don’t know what BRG uses, I was using they/them to be gender neutral (no pronouns in bio either).
If that’s the comparison, then yeah that’s ableist, but I think it’s hard to tell in part due to the sheer absurdity and also the fact that the “disabled slaver” thing is a meme like I said before. You might be right though.
Oh, I didn’t realize this. Still, I don’t see how bringing it up in this context (the tweet is definitely about the BAFTA awards, based on their timeline) can not be ableist, unless it was responding to some specific racist point someone else made and there’s no indication of that that I can see.
At minimum I agree that it was very irresponsible, since the more optimistic interpretation still hinges on them neglecting to give context, which they really have no reason not to.
Have I mentioned how much I fucking hate Twitter?