Killing the disabled

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, I'd say that's about the size and shape of the thing. I can't say much for my immediate exposure to people; the few that know I am "disabled" are people who know me well. There's a reason for that. I tell no one I don't have to, in the hope of keeping my family safe.

My husband says my fears are ungrounded.

I think he's nuts.

I reiterate: When did the astute Jews start leaving Germany?? When did they start leaving Europe??

Firstly, nobody should have to go through that horrible stuff.

But the world does not admire bullies. We have laws against abuse, punching, kicking, and raping. We do not have laws forbidding standing up to bullies, or caring for your family. In fact, we pay people to do those things!

As a society, we praise nurses, carers, fire fighters, teachers, doctors, and charity workers. We imprison people who are violent.

People do not want to be friends with the violent. Even bullies who don't break the law, or don't break it badly enough to go to prison, suffer socially. Nobody wants to be friends with a bully, or marry them.

To clarify, I am not saying selflessness is sufficient for success- but an element of it is, in the long run, necessary.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote.

But by the end of the day humans have a pack-mentality. What this means is you should conform to the group, or you'll be mocked. When you have Aspergers Syndrome you're often not capable of conforming socially even if you had the desire to do so, which means the group wants to get rid of you. The pack mentality can make people really mean towards others, and in such a setting people can soon enough agree that this world would be a better place without disabled people, so a solution would be to just kill them. That includes people with AS.

Who comes up with these crazy ideas? If one wanted to tackle the over population issue, getting rid of those who don't believe in using birth control would be much more efficient.

But the problem is that society thinks we're the ones that are violent. It's easy to idealize nurses, fire fighters, teachers, doctors, and charity workers, but the people who can't easily be idealized are the ones that get stereotyped and bullied. A lot of people despise bullies yet are bullies at the same time, because they view the problems of society as just being a conflict between people rather than it also being conflict between ideals and lack thereof, thus they'll never realize that their own unidealistic actions are part of the problem. A lot of unidealistic people, who make up societies that drive people to commit heinous acts, like to believe that they don't embody the attitudes of the society that drove them to that point. The reason why the world isn't a better place is the same as the reason why a lot of people don't want to better themselves. Most people will never accept that they're part of the problem as long as they can fully blame it on someone or something else. People cannot be convinced to try to live above something without first realizing that they live within it. Too many people want the world to be a better place, yet aren't willing to be a better person to contribute to making it that way.

Selflessness is desirable, the catch is the selfish make themselves look selfless.

I agree that groups can be less moral than individuals, and we need to watch out for baying mobs.

I do not think that not conforming is necessarily in order to avoid being killed, or any of the baby steps before that. Again, a lot of the people we as a society admire are those that did not conform, such as Martin Luther King. We have more acceptance of minority groups than ever, even minorities that are such because of their behaviour, like homosexuals and transgendered people. Heck, I even think things are getting better for autistic people.

So I have to disagree with you that there is no hope unless you are egocentric and conformist.

Action T4, much? These kinds of views are purely sick and only belong to bigots. We can't allow these views to gain wide-spread popularity throughout society, or else I fear that the rights of disabled people will be ignored (as can be exemplified by history itself). We, as a society, need to address these kinds of opinions and protect those that are more vulnerable to discrimination. It doesn't matter if these perspectives have cultural, social or sociobiological roots; we cannot allow for the disabled to be treat as lesser or inhuman. There needs to be change.

I heard this barbarity as well in 1994 about disabled being a so called drain on resources too. I was disgustd by it but had to think perhaps the person who said it was just plain thick which he was. Actually this is not seen as serious as racism or anti Semitism and a lot of disabled people use a lot of support because they need to and this includes various social security benefits due to the fact that most employers would not give anyone who is not either fully mobile or allistic a job so they have to rely on social security benefits and this also includes people on the autistic spectrum. I used to be a self advocacy worker for a group called Reading speaking Up Group (unfortunately no longer) exists which was for non allistic people and that people who were not excluded and we used to discuss issues like neurobigotry including aspiphobia.

I do not like the apologists that make excuses for such right wing bile but on the other hand some of these that say that they would favour compulsory euthanasia for disabled people perhaps have support/access needs which are not met and see others that are catered for and this can cause so much ill feeling. This needs to be nipped in the bud but no one is interested in this. Another issue is that can be an issue is that people have been brought up to feel that way about people who are different in some way by their families. Unfortunately hating on disabled people is trivialised so much that it is seen as mild anti social behaviour and not a hate crime or most people only see it that way but. Lets say an allistic person heard an Aspie say that his or her country should be transformed into a ugenically pure Aspergia then there would be a lot of allistic people that would take strong offence at this idea but say similar ideas about the non allistic and disabled people without being branded as a National Socialist. People also would make so many excuses those that hate various kinds of disabled people and on must not forget there are disabled people such as paraplegic people who are aspiphobes so it is not just a non disabled or allistic issue butt a wider human issue and goes to show that we do not live in a civilised society and it was only 20 years ago that the beginning of the end of state sponsored neurobigotry with the commencing of the closure of the concentration camps that were previously used to detain non allistic people.

Ablism and neurobigotry can progress onto racism and anti semitism as well. Also the concept of reasonable adjustments ie access needs for disabled people is interpreted for the convenience of allistic and non disabled people. Also if a disabled person or non allistic person comes up with an intelligent idea or tone that can be helpful to society as a large are not recognised and the more able of this section are taken for granted and some allistic person or non disabled person ends up with the credit for the good idea or project. Also there is the concept of not wanting to pay for other people to use a service or some other provision and this is what people do not like. This is an area that can cause a lot of resent. There is the Allport's scale of prejudice which is a scale of 1 to 5 and the last is what this discussion is about and 1 is the mild form such as ignoring or some form of hate speech or deliberate exclusion from the participation in society in which the outgroup no longer identifes with the majority. This can include an autistic child adolescent in school having to take qualifications which are not good for finding a job but good for reliance on social security benefits such as the bad old two tier system of post 16 qualifications the O levels and CSEs in which the latter was for people who would end up learning a trade which is not good for Asperger syndrome people but allistic people did not care about that and nowadays even in Asperger syndrome most ideas that cater for Asperger syndrome people isare for children and young adults of 18 to 25 years old. The older type is more likely to receive aspiphobia and to be excluded and told you don't fit here ypou don't fit there despite requests not to say such offensive things.

There is also a lot of ablist and allistic supremacist language on internet forums which say that non allistic people are a burden and other thing as well mostly directed against people with learning disabilities. This has caused some people to kill their disabled offspring also why do aalistic people descibe themselves as normal? Normal is a code word for superior and therefore it is pure arrogance.

Firstly, I don't think I've ever encountered someone blatantly saying that we should kill the disabled. But I do hear the ableist sentiment all the time.

Another thought about this is that it's not about separating people who are different. It's strongly tied into society's high values on independence and hard work. As soon as one values strongly something, the opposite gets devalued. If you're not independent and not hard working (even if it's due to a disability), you are a drain. North American society is so strongly driven by productivity, success and independence, that in order to address the underlying sentiment that those with disabilities should be killed. one must also address this idea that productivity is one of the most important things in life.

While I agree with most of what aspiewordsmith says, I still find that he/she seems to be tackling the issue of having disabled people in a society where most people are considered abled quite differently from what I do. For instance, you are upholding the idea that it is proper and right for everyone to have a job, and we should accommodate people for that. But I don't think that that's necessary or even desirable. I'd MUCH rather have people see that having a job isn't a necessary part of life. I mean, everyone works and does SOMETHING anyways. Just because someone isn't getting paid for something, doesn't mean they are worthless. Of course I do realize that in a capitalist society, money is necessary, and I think social programs for people who can't support themselves (which includes many disabled people) should be mandatory. What I rally against is the idea that requiring social assistance is a bad thing, (it just isn't, it's just something that is) whereas it seems that you dislike social assistance as it is just another way of marginalizing the disabled. (I could be wrong with this aspiewordsmith, I don't mean to put words in your mouth.)

Switching to another loosely connected topic is a much more personal one. I have a seriously, seriously disabled cousin. She's alive because of tubes and constant seizure medications. She doesn't have facial expressions anymore, she can't eat anymore, doesn't show preference for tastes or other stimuli anymore. With the amount of seizures she's had, she could very well be close to brain dead. Her family hasn't looked after her for a very, very long time. My aunt has expressed to me, once, that she often thinks she'd have been better off not giving up her child to the home where she's kept, so that her daughter could have died years ago in her own care and avoided what her mother can only perceive as a painful existence, (if there's anyone left to experience it), because that would not have been see as murder. If my aunt were to waltz in and disconnect her daughter, she would get convicted no doubt. I truly have a hard time believing that my cousin wants to live, yet I do perceive that she probably experiences pain or other discomfort regularly throughout her day...she can't do a thing for herself. While there are many resources being used to keep her alive, that's just an aside to the real issue. To me it's cruel to force her to stay alive. At no other time so far in human history would she survive. And it truly is a decision that is up to people besides herself, it's up to society, she's beyond being able to communicate even with head nods and blinks, (not that I'm sure she can understand any language at all in any form anymore). And I think society is choosing wrong.

I want to make it perfectly clear though, obviously if someone wants to live, killing them is wrong. (barring crazy make-believe scenarios.)

Speaking of killing the disabled, it reminds me of The Giver by Lois Lowry.

Last edited by League_Girl on 18 Nov 2013, 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't think it makes much sense to talk about those extreme situations in which not everyone can live and someone has to die. I think we need to focus on avoiding those situations to begin with.

Building a society in which people with different abilities can live together is a tricky proposition, but it can be done and I think it's worth it.

The memorial in my sig should give you an idea of the problem specifically for autistics.

As people who are aware of the huge inequalities that exist among humanity, we rather face situations like this whenever we think about those inequalities. We just also feel powerless to change them.

Yes. It's a feeling that lies, though. Inequalities have been changed before, and they can be changed for us. Our autistic great-grandchildren may have totally equal rights--in practice, not just in theory--because of what we do today.

Bigots love to make you feel like you can't change things. It gives them power. Fight that feeling of helplessness.

I don't think that will ever happen. It did in Germany and because of that everybody will start bringing up Hitler if anybody were to seriously propose something like that. People do learn from history. It won't happen again, or if it does it won't happen in any developed nation.

I think it's probably some kind of pack mentality like was stated, but that's because in the past disabled people died sooner because there wasn't much that could be done for them. Now there is and people may get afraid that they are using up resources, but they aren't. It's not like we only have so much food and healthy people are dying of starvation so that people who can never get better will live. It's not an end of the world, do or die thing, and that's the only time that it would ever be seriously considered, and even then it would probably only seriously be considered because in a scenario like that it would be better to die quickly and painlessly than a longer, painful and lingering death while the apolocypse is going on and nobody is there to take care of you.

Heh-- you're not the only one. That's exactly what it reminds me of. The range of what is "normal" and "acceptable" seems to get smaller and smaller; what is available to you if you fall outside of that range is less and less.

It's not, unfortunately, the radical right that's advocating this crap. The radical right might not want to pay for services or supply any form of disability income-- but the worst that can be said of them is that they want to leave us on our own to sink or swim. The advocates of eugenic euthanasia are on the left-- and becoming more and more mainstream, as the environmental movement pushes us toward a worldview of scarcity while at the same time refusing to back off one inch from the lifestyle of luxury and excess that is the "American Dream."

I first heard the idea on a mainstream environmentalist board-- The Mother Earth News, to be exact. I won't speak for the magazine's position-- though I think it's pretty clearly laid between the lines-- but quite a large slice of the readership openly advocates for universal prenatal testing and mandatory abortion of abnormal fetuses, sterilization of adults with "undesirable traits," reproduction by license only, and the structured, organized killing of those at the end of their useful lives and/or those who have otherwise failed to be "beneficial to society."

We already see people as, ideally, standardized manufactured products. Implementing more ruthless methods of "quality control" is, without a doubt, in the offing. The only way we're going to stop it, is to get enough NT's with excellent communication on our side to pull what might be termed a "reverse Hitler"-- to use massive media campaigns (on the order of the one Autism Speaks has mounted against us) to get people to see us as people, stop fearing us, and to realize that what we're asking for is nothing more or less than basic human decency.