• DessertStorms@kbin.social
    26·
    1 year ago

    No, that’s ableism.

    https://www.theodysseyonline.com/functioning-labels-ableist-nonsense

    https://web.archive.org/web/20230605065733/https://ollibean.com/intelligence-is-an-ableist-concept/

    https://disabledfeminists.com/2009/10/23/ableist-word-profile-intelligence/

    https://www.bristolautismsupport.org/ableism

    E: If you’re looking to protect vulnerable people, who will always exist, how about addressing those who take advantage of them, and our ableist (and classist, and racist) societies that enable and even encourages it?

    • darq@kbin.social
      51·
      1 year ago

      I’m not talking about intelligence or IQ. I didn’t even say “intelligence”.

      I’m talking about access to information.

      Not every single individual needs to be a skilled reader. But people, in general, do need to be able to access information. If significant parts of the population are struggling to read, that’s not a condemnation on them as individuals, but can mean that they are vulnerable to being cut off from information they need to live their best lives, or to impact the world in the way they might desire to.

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        16·
        1 year ago

        I do not believe people who cannot read at an adult level are able to access and understand the information and knowledge they need to navigate the world effectively.

        That is ableism, plain and simple (you don’t have to say a word for it to be heavily implied, and if you’d read further you would have realised it’s about much more than IQ, but even if we ignore that word, that statement is still ableist). People are able to process information and the world around them in a variety of ways, you not seeing it as effective, or it not being for you, doesn’t mean it isn’t.
        And those who still struggle should be supported where they are, not expected to fit in to the abled (and capitalist) “box” (edit to clarify: people struggle because society is designed to exclude them, not because these arbitrary skills are necessary for survival, except for in a capitalist system which only values “productivity”).

        • darq@kbin.social
          21·
          1 year ago

          Alright I’m going to admit I chose my words a bit poorly in that quote. Sorry. Because it was not my intention to judge the “effectiveness” of individuals, but rather comment on how populations of people navigate the world.

          Which is what the post was originally about. That huge swaths of US folks are reading at a below-par level. This isn’t about differences in ability or intelligence. If at the population level, literacy is low, that’s about education, or some other influence.

          And if large numbers of people are less able to access information, that’s a problem. That limits those populations.

          People are able to process information and the world around them in a variety of ways, you not seeing it as effective, or it not being for you, doesn’t mean it isn’t.

          While one of my statements was badly worded, now you’re starting to put words in my mouth.

          And those who still struggle should be supported where they are, not expected to fit in to the abled (and capitalist) “box”

          I did not say otherwise, and I would not say otherwise, because I agree.

          people struggle because society is designed to exclude them, not because these arbitrary skills are necessary for survival, except for in a capitalist system which only values “productivity”

          Yes. Two frameworks of disability. The ableist framework locates the “issue” in the disabled person’s body. But that’s arbitrary, and we can easily think of the issue being located in the societal constructs that don’t take into account different people’s abilities, and are thus not fit for purpose.