[Eugenicist]

Originally Posted by Lakehead

Are you saying Racism doesn't exist in the developed world?

This is a quote from a fella named Henri Stiker and some of my observations, I think I can prove to you that disabled people in general are oppressed, or at least provide a compelling argument. Also most countries in the developed world are not 99% able bodied.

What exactly are we discussing? Race or disabled people? Or do you consider a certain race to be medically disabled? You mentioned racism here but the rest of the text seems to be about people with physical disabilities.

Does racism exist? Yes, but racism is not oppression.

As far as legislative racism, which can be oppression; obviously in the developed world, for decades, nearly all racist/race-based laws are specifically aimed against the survival of the main inhabiting culture, not against minorities.

I'm sure you've noticed, most modern claims of racism come via extremely vague, and quite frankly pathetic accusations of the nameless, faceless "establishment" holding somebody down in "subtle" ways.

Then, when a case of racism actually does happen, and a name and face is given, all of the pent-up, vague theories and scapegoating are suddenly given pretend-verification just long enough to milk it. ex; "This article is for all of you who say racism isn't a problem!!!".

Still, there is no legislation against minorities that enables anyone to claim state-sponsored oppression or anything of that sort. The US has pretty much adopted full-on suicidal subsidization with blatantly Marxist logic behind it in that area, and quite frankly, it is starting to show economically. Illogical? Yes, but still not 'oppression' in either direction.

“It is common today to identify exclusion (at times quite subtle) and protest against it. The reason for that exclusion can be pinpointed fairly easily…We shall try here to ask the question in a different fashion: Why does society try to integrate the disabled? What is behind this intention? And more exactly, why does society want to integrate in the way that it does?”

“there is no better way to escape the fear of strangeness than by forgetting aberrancy through it’s dissolution into the social norm… In other words, the disabled are made to adapt to society such as it is.”

The desire for integration comes from fear, and an unwillingness to change society itself for the betterment of certain members.

Perhaps there is some additional relevant context that helps the above make sense, but from reading just that; no. You don't "integrate" something because you fear contact with it, you segregate it if you fear it. Thats like saying someone who's scared of pineapples frantically rubs pineapples all over themselves out of fear. Again, maybe its the lack of proper context.

There are some problems here: attempting to integrate the disabled into a world designed for the able is bound for failure from the start, because the objective is incompatible with the situation.
All deviation is defined by its relationship to the norm; the phenomenon of disability arises when the environment that an individual is situated in can no longer keep him as it has in the past. Here we find disability becoming synonymous with the term maladjusted. This is very problematic, as it is inevitable that there will be, without eugenics, the birth of disabled children and accidents that cause injury and bodily change. Disability cannot disappear, and so neither can maladjustment, attempting to force its disappearance is futile and bound to fail.

Heck, that response writes itself. Eugenics (in the form of preventing people with high-frequency genetic diseases with severe symptoms from reproducing), until we have perfected gene therapy and functional replacement limbs or something similar will greatly assist in solving the problem (and in the case of genetic disease frequencies, has already shown amazing results).

Of course, by the logic of this author, the people who design these cures would be evil, because in saying disabilities should be cured, he is oppressing disabled people and subjecting them to the majorities relative standards, or some crazy shit, but this is wow:

Stiker suggests a solution: integrate the disabled on their own terms, rather than trying to cure, rehabilitate or otherwise change them.

Wait what? Rather than trying to cure or rehabilitate? So end attempts to cure or rehabilitate the disabled, and do this instead?:

This of course requires changing society as a whole, but as we have seen, this is the only solution if a society truly desires equality.

Well he makes a valid point, we should probably drop the equality nonsense if we want society to survive.

It is society that produces the disabling character of disability, and since this is the case, the society can also eliminate, or at least elevate, the disabling character of disability. This dude stiker makes a very cool and important distinction, that being the difference between equality and sameness. Equality comes from the acceptance of difference as it is, not from attempting to mould the different into a socially constructed norm.

Ok, got it. But basically you're saying that the "norm" dictated by human adaptation to our environment creates a standard which doesn't align properly with "disability", thus disability as a concept or entity exists solely because of that relationship. The problem here is that this lacks something called "objective". We hold those standards because they the object is functionality and happiness for the majority. So without explaining how you can destroy that objectivity without causing more harm than good, he hasn't really "concluded" anything, he has just asked a rhetorical question.

I can't believe I just wrote all that, especially considering how confident I am that nobody is going to read it
fucking sherdog

Honestly, I wish I hadn't.