Actual title: "A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to call into meetings; he says that keeps him from doing his job".
That's a big difference from the submitter claiming "isn't allowed to participate".
A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
61–65 of 65 posts
Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
#62> "It just comes down to the fact that I think it’s disrespectful for someone to be asking questions over a microphone or a speakerphone when individuals are actually taking the time out of their day to come and testify in person," Vos said. I can see going "hey, voice over phone just doesn't work as smoothly" without considering the disability. But of course, that's the point - they get to consider "normal" as not i…
I just don't understand how people so heartless and selfish like this exist and are functional. It speaks poorly to society that one can be this way and not shunned. This person thinks their ego and perceived "respect" matters more than anything and a disabled person using accessibility tools is a slight? There is not a single shred of empathy there. It's just inconceivable to me to think like that.
> There is not a single shred of empathy there.
At this point has it not been repeatedly documented that individuals with antisocial personality disorder are well represented in leadership positions?
Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you gaining from removing disabled people from "everyone"? You're against protections for these people because it's not fair to you? Ever consider that your way is not fair to them and potentially any other arbitrarily defined group of people?
I gain a backbone. People with disabilities are a noble cause, but not an argument for inequality of rights. Consider that being equal is not discriminatory against any "arbitrary defined group of people", exactly opposite to your arbitrary rights.
Being equal can easily discriminate against anyone because your definition of equality does not match everyone else's. So, in your case, being equal means that handicapped people aren't treated equally. What if you set your arbitrary equality definition to only apply to white people? Now you're being equal by your personal standards again but you just regressed to the 1800s.
Your version of equality is worthless, your backbone is just an excuse to make yourself feel better.
Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
So are you against handicap parking? You define reasonable by using reason. You examine the situation and try to see if you can make an accommodation for the person that lets them do their job while not sacrificing performance. If you can, you do it. You justify making these accommodations because you realize that there are some people who have conditions that make following the same routines that most people do impo…
You're comparing two different things though. Not everyone can have the closest parking space, but couldn't everyone attend the meeting remotely? If you add the capability to do it then I can give you a thousand reasons why someone should need it. They could be photosensitive and need to avoid sunlight, or agoraphobic, or have children they can't leave home alone, or follow a religion that requires them not to look u…
For this particular case, I don't know. Someone who set the policy would have to articulate why they thought it was important. Once they have articulated that, we can decide where the line should be for who gets the exemption and who doesn't.
It is not an absolute formula. You have to use judgement, and sometimes you are going to get it wrong on the boundaries.
Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
#65I've been partially-to-fully disabled for 15 years now.
Discrimination against disabled people is 100% socially acceptable and I don't see it ending anytime soon. It comes from liberals/conservatives/rich/poor/everyone.
What almost always happens is this: a person/group will perform whatever mental gymnastics they have to and find a way to blame the disabled person and/or wash their hands.
"you lack respect"
"you're exaggerating your disability and using it as an unfair advantage"
"you're not ready to get back into the workforce"
"people will complain that you're accommodated but they aren't"
"i just can't afford to help you, but i'm sure the next person will"
"too many gaps in your resume"
"you need to start at a low-level position and work your way up, but since you are physically incapable of the low-level position you can't work here"
At my last workplace I was repeatedly accused of sexism by a female coworker when I tried to set boundaries with her and communicate that I couldn't do all the things she asked me to do. I ended up just leaving because I couldn't get any work done as I had to spend an extraordinary amount of time crafting arguments to defend myself.