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

The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

wesleyyang.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#21

Post by jazzyjackson »

taurath wrote: post #17
the_third_wave wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, stating that legal protections for certain categories of people are being abused by others has nothing in common with what you compare it to, it is a simple statement of fact which veracity can be gleaned both from the article as well as from experience for those who've been confronted with some "emotional support" creature when the fad became popular. The fact that the subject is not discussed on liberal channel…

Take it up with the ADA then. Conservative memes are not simple statements of fact unless you want to bring data to the conversation.

What is conservative about pointing out that so-called Emotional Support Animals are not protected by the same laws as Service Animals?

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#22

Post by noptd »

taurath wrote: post #17
the_third_wave wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, stating that legal protections for certain categories of people are being abused by others has nothing in common with what you compare it to, it is a simple statement of fact which veracity can be gleaned both from the article as well as from experience for those who've been confronted with some "emotional support" creature when the fad became popular. The fact that the subject is not discussed on liberal channel…

Take it up with the ADA then. Conservative memes are not simple statements of fact unless you want to bring data to the conversation.

And referring to something as a political meme is a shallow dismissal of the parent's point.

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#23

Post by Gunax »

Here's a thought experiment: suppose service animals did not exist. In this hypothetical world, do you suppose that users of ESAs would be able to successfully campaign for exemptions and rules for their animals that parallel the exemptions given to service animals?

I think that is highly unlikely. Service animals opened the door. And all ESAs had to do was pry it a little bit more. The propagation of ESAs rides on the average person's ignorance about the distinction between the two and a reluctance to inquire about an animal's status out of fear of prying, accusations of hostility, and simple shyness.

I know some people criticize the slippery-slope fallacy (their words) but it's a real thing. And once you let someone have an exemption, suddenly you realize there are sound arguments for just expanding the rules a little bit more.

No one wants to be the person telling someone 'No, you're not disabled'. It's uncomfortable, and seems harsh and unsympathetic.

The problem with these accommodations is that they aren't just a remedy for a disability, but are actually advantages. Giving students unlimited time on an exam incentivizes people to exaggerate symptoms.

So why don't we have this issue with ramps, door openers, and wide bathroom stalls? Well, the reason is that they are available to everyone--no one cares if you walk up the ramp or open the door with the button. They are required per the disability regulations, but in effect offered to everyone. And most people decline to use them because the don't give them an advantage.

The solution is simple--if someone requires it, them give it to everyone. If some people require unlimited time on the exam, then get rid of timed exams. If someone can bring a dog on the airplane, then anyone can.

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#24

Post by taurath »

noptd wrote: post #22
taurath wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take it up with the ADA then. Conservative memes are not simple statements of fact unless you want to bring data to the conversation.

And referring to something as a political meme is a shallow dismissal of the parent's point.

I counted the “rise of victimhood” as a political meme, as I think it’s a really shallow argument based in the masculine ideal of “just get over it” in relation to doctor diagnosed mental disorders.

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#25

Post by subjectsigma »

1. My sister has a registered emotional support animal. She did this purely because she could as a convenience thing. IE instead of shipping her pet in a crate she wanted to hold it in the cabin so she could avoid the hassle of checking it in. During the process of getting it registered her psychiatrist was 100% aware she did not need an emotional support animal and said that other patients did the same thing. Based on this I'm assuming emotional support animals are essentially a myth, true needs are extremely rare, and most are in similar situations to my sister.

2. I have horrendous allergies to animal dander, and just don't like animals in general. Not life threatening but if I ever encountered an animal on a plane it would probably be one of the worst experiences of my life. I 100% sympathize with this guy. I've met way too many people who treat their "fur babies" better than the actual human beings around them.

Based on this I would support banning animals on airlines.

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#26

Post by only_as_i_fall »

subjectsigma wrote: post #25

1. My sister has a registered emotional support animal. She did this purely because she could as a convenience thing. IE instead of shipping her pet in a crate she wanted to hold it in the cabin so she could avoid the hassle of checking it in. During the process of getting it registered her psychiatrist was 100% aware she did not need an emotional support animal and said that other patients did the same thing. Based…

All animals or just emotional support animals?

Well trained support animals seem both less common and more important, but unfortunately they're still animals.

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#27

Post by only_as_i_fall »

Wouldn't a good solution for this be to require significant training for emotional support animals?

There are certainly potential issues of disenfranchisement created by simply raising the bar of qualifying for special treatment, but it would also do a lot to eliminate these frivolous claims of ESA need and also help to legitimize animals that serve a genuine and important function.

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#28

Post by blacktriangle »

derbOac wrote: post #14

Am I the only one who feels like there are more important things to worry in the world about than emotional support animals?

When you have your workplace overrun by dogs because we no longer expect grown adults to manage their own emotions, it'll be the most important thing in your world too.

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#29

Post by tomjen3 »

munk-a wrote: post #3

If a blind woman enters your office with her dog and it poops on the rug you may be rather peeved over the event - but seeing eye dogs are exceedingly rare and blindness itself is a rather uncommon condition. I think part of the issue with ESAs was that suddenly they were everywhere - it didn't come on as a slow adaptation - it exploded like a fad because, well, it was one to a big portion of the population abusing i…

Honestly I wouldn't be peeved over the event, I would just demand she pay for a new rug, plus any incidental costs.

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#30

Post by nate_meurer »

subjectsigma wrote: post #25

1. My sister has a registered emotional support animal. She did this purely because she could as a convenience thing. IE instead of shipping her pet in a crate she wanted to hold it in the cabin so she could avoid the hassle of checking it in. During the process of getting it registered her psychiatrist was 100% aware she did not need an emotional support animal and said that other patients did the same thing. Based…

> if I ever encountered an animal on a plane it would probably be one of the worst experiences of my life.

If this is true, it sounds like a phobia, which is arguably itself a disability.

> I've met way too many people who treat their "fur babies" better than the actual human beings around them.

I sympathize with this in a way, but I urge you to recognize that your phobia may render you unable to understand or relate to the deep bonds that humans can form with their animals. These connections can be every bit as deep as those with other people.

> Based on this I would support banning animals on airlines.

If you're saying that your disability (i.e., you zoophobia) should be privileged over all other disabilities that might require the use of a service animal, then I think that's an unreasonable stance that, while common, won't ever be given credence in actual policy formation.

Even if someone isn't disabled and their animal companion isn't a service animal of any kind, I don't see why your disability should automatically foreclose their rights to have their companion with them.

For example, I have a friend, a single woman in her sixties with no family and no active social life. Her only companion is her little dog, who is far and away the most significant emotional bond in her life at the present time. If it happened that my friend had to travel and also had bring her dog with her, current airline policies would not automatically force her to put her companion in the cargo hold in deference to your phobia, and I think this is a fair compromise when the animal is small and well behaved.

Post reply on HN