Comment by AndrewKemendo
12 hours ago
I am a 100% P&T disabled veteran - I have handicapped parking and all of that.
I could sit here and list out all the medical and legally accepted reasons that the Veterans Administration, and as a result all other regulatory bodies, give me this status (epilepsy, constantly dislocating shoulders, hip arthritis, tinnitus, PTSD etc...)
However I have friends, colleagues and neighbors who are measurably less physically and mentally capable but are not considered disabled.
When I look at the job market, MOST people are not capable of doing their individual life without significant training, help, direction or supervision. People call this bad-state "adulting" and find it onerous.
Said another way, the vast majority of people do not have the cognitive ability, education (self taught or formal), or experience to set goals, take actions and self improve without significant direction from someone else. I personally consider that disabled.
So if these people are considering themselves disabled, then they are probably right - they are incapable of being independent or living within a community that takes care of them. So the only remaining community left is the abstracted transactional monetary system implemented by governments to allocate resources toward them provided they check the right boxes.
Ideally 100% of humanity would be on disability - because we can build systems measurably more capable than human labor - someone just needs to rebrand it as "UBI."
I just applied to a job and part of it was a disability disclaimer. Here's the list:
* Alcohol or other substance use disorder (not currently using drugs illegally)
* Autoimmune disorder, for example, lupus, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, HIV/AIDS
* Blind or low vision
* Cancer (past or present)
* Cardiovascular or heart disease
* Celiac disease
* Cerebral palsy
* Deaf or serious difficulty hearing
* Diabetes
* Disfigurement, for example, disfigurement caused by burns, wounds, accidents, or congenital disorders
* Epilepsy or other seizure disorder
* Gastrointestinal disorders, for example, Crohn's Disease, irritable bowel syndrome
* Intellectual or developmental disability
* Mental health conditions, for example, depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD
* Missing limbs or partially missing limbs
* Mobility impairment, benefiting from the use of a wheelchair, scooter, walker, leg brace(s) and/or other supports
* Nervous system condition, for example, migraine headaches, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis (MS)
* Neurodivergence, for example, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, dyslexia, dyspraxia, other learning disabilities
* Partial or complete paralysis (any cause)
* Pulmonary or respiratory conditions, for example, tuberculosis, asthma, emphysema
* Short stature (dwarfism)
* Traumatic brain injury
The form asks if you currently have or have ever had one of these in the past. Well, I don't know if anyone I've met hasn't. I said "no." I have no idea what the right approach here is.
I'd definitely not tick "low vision" and then straighten my glasses in a disapproving manner
If you want the job the right answer's going to be no. Unfortunately only a small fraction of those maladies gets you on disability, almost none of them before age 50.
Or say yes, then sue when they don't hire you.
1 reply →
How can you say anything except no? Who, when applying for a job, wants to make themself look like a less attractive candidate?
The hiring manager probably doesn't see it, but recruiters and HR do, and they have a mandate to make sure that the company is hiring at least X% of people with disabilities.
In a world where 99% of resumes are never going to get seen by the hiring manager, checking the disability box might be the only way to have your application get past the initial recruiter/HR or recruiting-software screen.
Interesting perspective. A lot of the nuance and disagreement comes from what we mean when we say “incapable”.
No, the view that "everyone should be on disability" is just socialism..
> the vast majority of people do not have the cognitive ability
Fascinating. I'd love to know more.
Assuming your statement is true: If most people lack executive function, then people presenting ADHD symptoms are the norm, not the exception.
Accepting that hard truth would change society, right?
--
Not to get too into the weeds about UBI...
> Ideally 100% of humanity would be on disability
Do you mean 100% eligibility, regardless?
> someone just needs to rebrand it as "UBI."
Or maybe you mean the original "negative income tax" proposal? (What the kids today call "UBI".) So that everyone's guaranteed a bare minimum income.
In either case: I agree.
We'd be able to greatly simplify our patchwork safety network. No need for special consideration for pregnancy, family leave, eldercare, recovering from surgeries, etc.
My point is we have the mechanisms to implement UBI today if we want, we just choose not to.
And yes from my experience with people diagnosed with ADHD - IMO it’s an “adjustment disorder” for people who can’t fit into a rote directed life
On the opposite end people with high anxiety but can play the role of doing what they are told go far, but are mimics, and have nary a new thought or alternative view available to them.
I would absolutely hate to have to think myself "disabled" and I would hate the idea of the state seeing itself as my "caretaker".
What you are describing is also the opposite from what liberal democracy was envisioned as. It was supposed to be a state, which created complete and mature citizens, which make well formed decision and can be trusted with governing the country.
To be honest I do not think that you are wrong in your description, the state is certainly transforming into an institution where the citizen are envisioned as disabled wrecks, which are in desperate need of government support. I just hate that this is the case, it is fundamentally incompatible with the ideals of a liberal democracy.
It was supposed to only count landowning males over 25, which was expected to consist of mature able citizens with assets.
you’re forgetting white, straight, and cisgender on that list
obviously it’s horrendously wrong but like someone else said kudos for speaking your “truth” or whatever
I don't know what you are trying to say. Obviously what you are complaining about has changed and now all adults should be capable citizens.
Is it wrong that the state wants to create capable and mature citizens who can be trusted with participation in government?
so the problem is actually allowing renters to vote? that's a wild take I didn't expect to see on the orange site today but points for honesty and boldness I guess
Countries are created by adults and destroyed by children, and that's the normal stage of progress. The metaphorical adults, or the great souls, are experienced, self-directed and inspired by a vision of the great future. They know where they want to get and how to get there. The metaphorical children, or the young souls, live in the dark, clueless about what they are here for, so they chase minute distractions and learn by mistakes. However those mistakes is the only way to grow up.
The fundamentally incompatible part is that the citizens are not complete and mature?
If citizens are broken people who need the support of the state they obviously can not make informed decisions and should not be allowed participate in politics.
The goal of liberal democracies is that the citizens are capable and mature and thus can be trusted with governing.