These thoughts are in no particular order.
I agree that tarring an entire group with the same brush is not OK. I also understand the frustrations of everyone who’s been posting using the hashtag #AbledsAreWeird. I read stories every single day from blind people and other people with disabilities, (deaf people, people who are on the autism spectrum, ETC.), expressing frustration and anger at the way they have been treated and are still being treated by people who don’t appear to be disabled in any way, and I think jumping to condemn them for expressing that frustration which is something I see quite often, is also the wrong take. So far I’ve only seen one objector to the #AbledsAreWeird hashtag offer something that would communicate the same message without tarring an entire group with the same brush, and I think that’s telling.
I found out about the #AbledsareWeird hashtag due to the corresponding reactionary outrage on the part of those opposed, and I’m wondering at the irony of the outrage against the outrage.
Several of the people I’ve seen reacting with outrage/disgust/objection to the hashtag and accusing participants of bigotry against abled people are also more than willing to tar, say, undocumented immigrants with the same kind of brush, and I’m thinking that they should take their own advice when it comes to what is essentially tone policing of anyone participating in the AbledsAreWeird hashtag.
Alienating abled people is I think the least convincing of the arguments against the hashtag. By that logic, we shouldn’t fight for web or physical accessibility, because it might piss people off.
More broadly, I think there has to be a balance between offense/outrage and just letting live, but the people who bitch about everyone being offended all the time are just as trigger-happy and contribute to the whole thing. In other words, everybody’s offended all the time, even the people bitching about social justice warriors or whatever, but the grievances depend on who’s speaking. There is, after all, nothing new under the sun.
Well hi there, the Facebook! Thanks for noticing that I posted something about how your efforts to become the central authentication service for everything is not a good thing, and showing your appreciation by showing me an ad for, you guessed it, an ad for passwordless secure authentication. I’ve attached a screenshot for the light slaves, but for the blinks, the relevant text is this:
Passwordless is possible with modern adaptive authentication defense layers. Download this guide to learn how eliminate passwords while improving security and user experience.
Remove Reliance on Passwords
LikeReactCommentShareLike PageFull StoryMoreSponsored
Yet another advantage to owning my own data: I can share the text of screenshots as text. 🙂
I know that for you Facebook-having people, this is no big deal. You have resigned yourself to the idea of Facebook owning your data.
No, we haven’t all resigned ourselves to Facebook owning our data. But too many people have, or don’t understand why owning their data is important. So for the Facebook crowd, one more reason to own your data. Facebook wants to be the “one authentication service to rule them all”, and this is not a good thing because it means that should you choose not to have a Facebook account, you’ll lose access to other completely unrelated services. I’m picking on Facebook, but this would be just as bad if anyone else tried to do it. This is an example of social networks overstepping their bounds, and they wouldn’t be doing this if they didn’t know they have millions of users who will gladly log into whatever with their Facebook account because it’s perceived to be quick and convenient, turning over all their data, (including personal information), to a for-profit company that will gladly sell it to the highest bidder.
Still trying to nail down why WordPress isn’t receiving webmentions from Bridgy. I’ve double-checked all configuration options, and according to both the WordPress-specific documentation for Bridgy and the official documentation for Bridgy, everything appears to be set correctly. I’ve tried both hiding and showing syndication links to see if that was the issue, but no dice. I’ve had my default post kind set to note using what is essentially the official post kinds plugin for WordPress for a while, but am switching it back to article and using WordPress’s native status post format to see if this makes a difference. Based on when webmentions from Bridgy apparently stopped coming in, I think the change of the default post kind from article to note may have something to do with the break. We’ll see.
BTW if you’re reading this on Facebook, click the link at the bottom of the status message to visit the original so you can see all the links.
Last night, the president announced his Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. I won’t post the entire fact sheet, but you can download the Neil Gorsuch fact sheet, (pdf) and read for yourself. Below is the section on students with disabilities, including references to cases and opinions. Granted, the left isn’t exactly a paragon of disability rights. However, depriving students with disabilities of their rights under either IDEA or the ADA is just screwed up, and makes a Gorsuch appointment just about as bad as appointing Betsy DeVoss, except that Gorsuch will stay on the Supreme Court for decades. From the fact sheet:
Gorsuch would not protect the rights of disabled students
Contrary to an earlier decision by an impartial hearing officer, Judge Gorsuch held that a
student with autism did not have a right under the federal Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) to an education that would provide a chance to achieve intellectual
and social skills outside the classroom. This, even though Congress made clear that
?prepar[ing] [students] to lead productive and independent adult lives, to the maximum
extent possible” is a major goal of the IDEA. See Thompson R2-J Sch. Dist. v. Luke P., ex
rel. Jeff P., 540 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 2008).
Over a vigorous dissent, Judge Gorsuch authored the majority opinion in A.F. ex rel
Christine B. v. Española Pub. Sch., 801 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2015), which held that a student
cannot, for technical reasons, assert a claim for violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act if she had earlier settled with a school district for violations of the IDEA even though, as
Congress made clear, students have distinct rights under both laws.
Judge Gorsuch authored the majority opinion in Garcia v. Board of Education of
Albuquerque Public Schools, 520 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2008), holding that even when a
school violates a student’s rights under the IDEA, the student may still be entitled to no
remedy for an IDEA violation if the student leaves the school out of frustration with the
school‘s continuous failure to follow the IDEA.
Supreme Court justices are confirmed by the senate. So, if you care about the rights of people with disabilities, (especially students), then if you’re not already ringing your congresscriters’ phones off the hook over some of these other nominees, now would be a good time to start.