Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

politicalphilosopher.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#51

Post by grasshopperpurp »

It's healthy to acknowledge when something has made you angry and/or sad. It's healthy to spend some time grappling with the reasons for your feelings, but I get the sense that the author has probably spent too long in a negative state. This is not healthy. You can argue it's justified, and, depending on your angle, it is. But, you can justify a lot of things that aren't good for you.

Trust your anger is dubious advice. If you apply the necessary disclaimers, it's fine, but, again, I don't get the sense that the author is balanced in this area.

It doesn't matter how right you are when you're hurting yourself. You're the only one who lives your life, the only one experiencing your feelings. The worse you feel, the worse you feel, and that's it. It can be helpful to let negative emotions drive you, but if you don't walk a razor's edge, those negative emotions will consume the things that make the effort worthwhile.

Life is a gift. Hardships are interference. At times, you have to deal with interference to get back to enjoying the gift. Maybe you're dealing with the interference on behalf of someone else so that they can better enjoy life - noble, for sure. But, the interference can be so ubiquitous that we center our lives around the interference, and here is where we lose the plot. Perspective allows you to see which interferences you need to deal with and which you can look through. Imo we're not really evolved to deal with the world we've built for ourselves, so it takes a good deal of reflection to gain a working perspective. Without that reflection, life can seem like a train of tragedies.

More of a rant than I meant, but take care of yourself. Take care of how you feel and see the world. No one can do it for you, and you're the one who has to feel the way you feel.

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#53

Post by goatse-4-u »

Doreen, your posts are too intelligent for this place... you're disturbing the wannabe fascists here clinging to whatever notions of superiority make them feel better about being FAANG parasites and incels.

EDIT: Wow, they've even grayed out your comment by now. @Dang, I hope you know what type of culture that you've perpetuated here.

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#54

Post by wavepruner »

omginternets wrote: post #43
wavepruner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "who should be saved" question is so silly to me. In reality, the person that gets saved is always the person that the savers want to save. From situation to situation there are a huge number of variables affecting what the savers' desire is. These situations are often unrelated to a person's disability status, and usually have a lot more to do with how much the saver likes the savee. I'm physically disabled, an…

The question is “who should be saved”, not “who will be saved”. It’s normative. The point of the exercise is to try to figure out which variables are most valued in theory.

We can talk about how things should and shouldn't be as long as we want, but that will not change human behavior.

When you're disabled you must come to terms with this reality and accept it quickly. You cannot waste time with theory. Theory will lead to your death. You must be practical and efficient to survive.

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#55

Post by sterlind »

jasonschlatt wrote: post #18
sterlind wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mu…

What if someone offered reliable gene therapy to fix the disability in your kids?

I'd likely take it, but I'd be conflicted. for all I know, those seemingly-defective genes might have contributed to my intelligence. I'm not sure what else I'd be eliminating..

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#56

Post by aw1621107 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #41

In the Bible, someone asks "Who sinned that this man was born blind, him or his parents." Jesus says "Neither," rejecting the assumption that his disability is a punishment. Mozart was deaf and five of his six siblings died young. He was constantly I'll, couldn't figure out how to manage money, was physically deformed and died at the of 35. https://www.grunge.com/194140/the-tragic-real-life-story-of-... You have no d…

> Mozart was deaf

Are you sure you aren't getting him mixed up with Beethoven?

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#57

Post by DoreenMichele »

aw1621107 wrote: post #56
DoreenMichele wrote: post #41

In the Bible, someone asks "Who sinned that this man was born blind, him or his parents." Jesus says "Neither," rejecting the assumption that his disability is a punishment. Mozart was deaf and five of his six siblings died young. He was constantly I'll, couldn't figure out how to manage money, was physically deformed and died at the of 35. https://www.grunge.com/194140/the-tragic-real-life-story-of-... You have no d…

> Mozart was deaf Are you sure you aren't getting him mixed up with Beethoven?

That's possible.

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#58

Post by omginternets »

wavepruner wrote: post #54
omginternets wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is “who should be saved”, not “who will be saved”. It’s normative. The point of the exercise is to try to figure out which variables are most valued in theory.

We can talk about how things should and shouldn't be as long as we want, but that will not change human behavior. When you're disabled you must come to terms with this reality and accept it quickly. You cannot waste time with theory. Theory will lead to your death. You must be practical and efficient to survive.

Sure. But what good is changing human behavior if we're not changing it in the way it should be?

You can't just dismiss theory.

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#59

Post by wavepruner »

omginternets wrote: post #58
wavepruner wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can talk about how things should and shouldn't be as long as we want, but that will not change human behavior. When you're disabled you must come to terms with this reality and accept it quickly. You cannot waste time with theory. Theory will lead to your death. You must be practical and efficient to survive.

Sure. But what good is changing human behavior if we're not changing it in the way it should be? You can't just dismiss theory.

I don't think you can change human behavior.

But you can accept it and design systems with that in mind.

So I guess I do like theory. But I think having conversations about how to force humans to behave differently is a waste of precious resources.

Human nature is to help disabled people when there is a surplus of resources, and to not help when there's not enough. So I think talking about what should happen during times of scarcity is not a good use of resources, because disabled people will always be abandoned when the resources do not exist to care for them. Nothing can change that.

Better to focus on building systems that reduce the severity and duration of bad times so they are short lived and prosperous times are longer lived.

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#60

Post by AQXt »

JetSetWilly wrote: post #28
AQXt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can understand where the author is coming from, but this is the cruel reality of the world. This article was written in 2015, when this kind of dilemma (who would you save) was purely theoretical. Fast-forward to 2020/2021, and it became real: we had to decide how to allocate scarce, life-saving resources -- COVID-19 vaccines -- and we decided to distribute them to the elder and most vulnerable first. I hope this…

That's a fallacy though. If COVID killed the youngest and most able among us equally or more than the most vulnerable, then vaccine distribution would have been different. Vaccine distribution was given to those most likely to suffer negative effects. If covid struck entirely randomly there's no reason to prioritise it on the elderly and vulnerable, you'd look at maximising QALYS instead.

Differently from most countries in the world, Colombia allowed corporations to buy and distribute vaccines to their employees.

The result?

Hunger Games: Food Delivery Company Giving Vaccines Only to Best Gig Workers

As COVID deaths in Colombia reach an all-time high and a third wave of infections has left hospital systems on the verge of collapse, the massive delivery company Rappi said it would offer vaccines to its employees.

The catch: the delivery workers will have to compete against each other to prove they are the hardest workers to win just a handful of jabs.

Juan Sebastián Rozo, Rappi’s director of public affairs, announced this week during a local radio interview that the company will give vaccines to the five percent of its delivery workers who “deliver the most orders, spend the most time logged into the app and because of that are the most exposed.”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkbqdg/hunger-games-food-del...

---

In other words: between a 20-years-old who works full-time and a 40-years-old who works part-time, the Rappi would give the jab to the 20-years-old.

So... don't take compassion for granted.

Post reply on HN