Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)
politicalphilosopher.net
Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)
1–10 of 60 posts
Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)
#2So a lot of the views she's angry against are because there's a tendency to consider extremes: would it be better for everyone in the world to be disabled, or not?
Surely it's easier to argue that we should have no people without legs rather than no people with legs
But that's not the question at hand. Maybe there's a benefit to diversity of perspectives. In which case the question should be is society better for having 1% (or 10% or 0.001%, anything above 0%) of the population disabled?
& there's the "everyone has different disabilities", some extreme would say I shouldn't've been born because I was diagnosed with ADHD. & the slippery slope of racial eugenics
Which all gets to this premise: we shouldn't be trying to create a world with a population of 10 billion clones
Now whether the natural diversity ratio is too high or too low, I'll reserve comment
Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)
#3For someone who is disabled and publicly outspoken about it, it sure is hard to find out what disability it is. There is a night and day difference between a physical and mental disabilities as well as a spectrum of severity between them. Her story would've been slightly more compelling had she disclosed that and why she felt that way about said disability.
Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)
#4So a lot of the views she's angry against are because there's a tendency to consider extremes: would it be better for everyone in the world to be disabled, or not? Surely it's easier to argue that we should have no people without legs rather than no people with legs But that's not the question at hand. Maybe there's a benefit to diversity of perspectives. In which case the question should be is society better for hav…
> Surely it's easier to argue that we should have no people without legs rather than no people with legs
I have never heard anyone be this reductionistic and be serious. that's not at all what the conversation is about.
> Maybe there's a benefit to diversity of perspectives. In which case the question should be is society better for having 1% (or 10% or 0.001%, anything above 0%) of the population disabled?
Pretty much all the elderly are disabled. I guess you're using disabled to refer to the young ones? Not all of us have been disabled since birth, either, there's accidents and diseases.
No, I think the question isn't "are we good for society?" The question is "are we allowed to exist, and can we have rights?"
I'm disabled. I'm extremely talented, I can still work, and I've contributed a lot at work, but I might not be able to keep my job in another five years. I'm still happy to have been born.
My mom was disabled (with a different disorder than me), and my grandfather too (with multiple things.) We'd have been euthanized in Nazi Germany for sure.
Are ethicists okay with me having bio-kids, who might possibly inherit my bad genes? I don't give a shit. Come at me, try and stop me. If I have to fight an ableist world to thrive and reproduce, that just makes me stronger than the abled people who can afford to be lazy.
Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)
#5I can understand where the author is coming from, but this is the cruel reality of the world.
> "I have sat in philosophy seminars where it was asserted that I should be left to die on a desert island if the choice was between saving me and saving an arbitrary non-disabled person"
I would compare this to situations where you are choosing a person with high IQ vs low IQ, or to choosing someone very attractive vs very ugly. The way I see it is these choices are completely rational and not a moral judgement on the people themselves.
I'm not angry because some people are more attractive, smarter or more charismatic than me and therefore have more access to opportunities. That is just the way humans work.
Interestingly, anger and bitterness is also the same reaction that men who are "incels" or who become disillusioned with women tend to have. Though they are shunned for this, whereas I doubt people will be shunning the author for their point of view. Perhaps this type of reaction is the generic reaction people have when they are rejected or shunned from society in some way.
Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)
#6For someone who is disabled and publicly outspoken about it, it sure is hard to find out what disability it is. There is a night and day difference between a physical and mental disabilities as well as a spectrum of severity between them. Her story would've been slightly more compelling had she disclosed that and why she felt that way about said disability.
Not sure it matters but Ehlers-Danlos syndrome is the answer.
Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)
#7For someone who is disabled and publicly outspoken about it, it sure is hard to find out what disability it is. There is a night and day difference between a physical and mental disabilities as well as a spectrum of severity between them. Her story would've been slightly more compelling had she disclosed that and why she felt that way about said disability.
Not sure it matters but Ehlers-Danlos syndrome is the answer.
huh, wild. I'm seeing a lot more of us these days.
Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)
#8So a lot of the views she's angry against are because there's a tendency to consider extremes: would it be better for everyone in the world to be disabled, or not? Surely it's easier to argue that we should have no people without legs rather than no people with legs But that's not the question at hand. Maybe there's a benefit to diversity of perspectives. In which case the question should be is society better for hav…
> So a lot of the views she's angry against are because there's a tendency to consider extremes: would it be better for everyone in the world to be disabled, or not?
I assure you this is not the view of either Peter Singer or Jeff McMahan, who are mentioned by name in the article and whose work in this area is deep and influential. Whether this is the view of any philosopher at all I cannot say, but I doubt it.
Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)
#9I can understand where the author is coming from, but this is the cruel reality of the world. > "I have sat in philosophy seminars where it was asserted that I should be left to die on a desert island if the choice was between saving me and saving an arbitrary non-disabled person" I would compare this to situations where you are choosing a person with high IQ vs low IQ, or to choosing someone very attractive vs very…
"Bitter cripple", as the author describes it, seems like an inversion of "bitter incel" in that the "bitter cripple" is angered by the special treatment their disability draws from people, and the "bitter incel" is angered by their perception that nobody views them as romantic candidates. One is about freedom to be a generic stranger, one is about the opportunity to be special to somebody (viewed generously).
Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)
#10This is really just a tirade. She's angry because rational philosophy, essentially, is not "intersectional" enough. We've seen the damage this has done to social science (just look at how well it has solved pre-college education).
The thesis of her tirade, the desert island and taking the "more capable" person, really left a lot of details out. It appears poised to support her argument rather than pose an interesting question. She claims she can find counter-examples, which she never mentions, and then continues on her tirade. This seems like an underhanded way to guilt anyone who might question her.
Here's an example where it becomes more interesting. Suppose you're on a desert island and you have 3 people. You, a disabled person, and an able-bodied person. Which do you choose to take?
Her implication is that you should take the disabled person. But in reality the _rational_ argument can go either way. I'm shocked that she missed this but also unsurprised. That is, rational philosophy is perfectly capable of addressing her argument without the need to inject several new variables that provide no value.
If you need someone to lift heavy things, and the disabled person does not have arms (or use of their arms), do they provide positive utility that enhances your survival? No. I think any rational actor can see this. In this case, it makes sense to take the able-bodied person. Ethically and morally questionable but certainly rational.
If you need someone to distill water, and the disabled person is a scientist, it would make sense to take the disabled person. You can make up for their shortcomings and the net utility is positive for your survival. Again, ethically and morally questionable but certainly rational.
I browsed the author's Google scholar page and am left unimpressed at the quality and depth of her papers. The URL of the website tells me all I need to know. I am unsure what the author is chasing but we can be certain it's not philosophy.