this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
52 points (94.8% liked)
Casual Conversation
2045 readers
225 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
FYI
A wheelchair is an aid for mobility and freedom, not something people are bound to, just like you aren't bound to your legs, but rather simply use them to get around.
While I understand what you mean and also agree with the sentiment, you should change how you phrase that argument. Because I am indeed quiet literally physically bound to my legs.
No, I'm good.
Well, since that's the term used the last time I was still working for/with people in chairs, and nobody has offered a different term for people that can't get around without a chair, I'm at a loss to why the terminology should change.
You can be bed bound still.
You do understand there's a difference between a chair being one of multiple options and one being the only available option, right? Like, a person can have mobility issues where a chair is the best option because of pain levels, safety, etc, but could still use other mobility aids. And then there's people that have no other options (as of yet, regarding technology development). The term chair bound has no meaning other than that, that I've ever seen.
Secondarily, considering the term is also used by chair bound people in my disability and chronic pain support group, idgaf what some random internet site says.
Also, I am bound to my damn legs. If they disappear, I either drag my ass everywhere by my arms, or I get a damn chair. I'm also cane bound at this point since the risks of not using it so far outweigh any possible reason for not using it that it reaches absurdity to call it an option.
Some things are just dumb when it comes to nitpicking terminology, and this is one of them
I am a wheelchair user, as is the person who wrote the article I'm sure you didn't read, and we are offering you another term.
The term is accepted and preferred by the community in general, and I provided you with one of thousands of detailed articles written by wheelchair users (E: as well as official government and other institutional and community guidelines) that explain why. You not wanting to listen to members of a group when they tell you your language is inappropriate or simply outdated, and to adapt and grow and show minimal respect, is a you problem, not a "nitpicking" problem. Your use of ableist language for emphasis, and pulling the "but my wheelchair using friend never corrected me" doesn't help your cause either.
The "community in general"?
Where was the election held? What was the quorum for an official decision?
Seriously, you're claiming authority here, so what is that authority?
Edit:
That's not what I said. I said people, plural, in a disability group. One that has more than one chair bound member. I also indirectly covered a long history of interaction with disabled people, including chair bound individuals.
You are literally the first person to have brought this up. It has never come up in group meetings, inservices on the job, via online support groups, or from any other sources at all.
From my end of things, you're making a specious claim to a community, with only a single article as your call to authority.
So, don't get this twisted here. You jumped into a casual conversation over a single term and then went all dickish because I didn't immediately comply with your wishes. As far as I'm concerned, even if/when you do back up your call to authority, you're still an asshole. So, you know, put up or shut up. I'll wait until you provide that proof of authority before blocking you, since if there actually is a big enough movement within the disabled community to change a term, I'm fine with that. I just don't accept your claim without more than what you brought to the table.