[Image ID: a post by wolfmoonjournal with a picture of a page reading: (title)"Two Beers and a Puppy": A Helpful Test for Determining How You Feel About Someone (body)"Two Beers and a Puppy" is a test that I devel oped while working on an Esquire story on the American "son of a bitch. The test is: In order to find out how you actually feel about someone, ask yourself, "Would I have two beers with this person!" And: "Would I allow this person to look after my puppy over a weekend?" Some people are no and no. These people are to be avoided at all costs. Some people are yes and no. These peo- ple are to be cautiously trusted. Some people are no and ye. These people are no fun but they make the world a better place-for puppies, especially. And some people are yes and yes. These people are wonderful people and your fe and work are better for having them in your life. Seek them out. Collaborate with them. Enjoy their company wolfmoonjournal then comments This has been going around my work and friend group on other platforms, and I thought it deserved a place here too. archdemoning then reblogs with tags saying #fit's a good limitus test. take out the specifics of drinking or not drinking alcohol vs owning a dog or not #it's basically 1) would you spend an evening laughing and enjoying conversation with someone and walking away like that was good: #and 2) do you trust this person has a basic level of willingness and ability to care for others and repay your trusting in them? Wit's just getting you to tap into the unconscious micro-tells our brains collect about other people #which are by far the most accurate assessment tools we have to judge peoples' characters on the fly and in general (via purplehawke) thegreenmeridian then says Shoutout to that time someone posted this on one of my servers and multiple people were going "this is exclusionary to people who don't drink/are allergic to dogs, also it is ableist to expect me to understand the concept of an analogy" Like yes ok I would definitely have neither 2 beers with you nor leave a puppy with any of you /end ID]
...
Okay, but were they saying "it's ableist to expect me to understand the concept of an analogy" or were they rightfully upset that when they took it literally you made fun of them, shit on them, or got overly angry at them for MISSING a metaphor, which some people in fact DO struggle to catch and understand? If you had just said "hey, I get what you mean, but what I meant was [good explanation that was provided in the tags], if you reframe it that way does that help? It was meant as a metaphor" would they have been chill?
Because if they'd still be bitey about it, yeah, I wouldn't share a beverage, food, OR time with them OR trust them with a task involving caring for others. But I'm SO USED TO people twisting the words of disabled people and taking them out of context to make it look like we're saying something completely ridiculous and shut down discussions of our actual struggles and oppression than I'm willing to bet I wouldn't even consider giving you the time of day after seeing which one it was. -_-
Also literally, EXPECTING everyone to get metaphors without being told they are not literally, especially when phrased in a way that a literal read makes sense, and then making fun of them or getting mad at them for making a single damn MISTAKE based on the way their brain naturally interprets things??? Yeah, that's fucking ableism.
You ever listened to a neurodivergent person talk about the trauma they went through as kids? This is one of the main. fucking. things!! We had to be explicitly TAUGHT to recognize and understand metaphors, and some of us still struggle with it! Hell, neurotypical kids had to be taught too, their brains are just naturally more able to "get it" in some cases.
Don't @ me about this because I struggled as a kid but in fact I do get, use (even overuse), and love metaphors nowadays! But I spent YEARS dealing with adults going "why don't you get it. it's obvious. you should know this already," when I DIDN'T AND COULDN'T AND THAT WAS THEIR FAILURE, NOT MINE.
Perpetuating that treatment with traumatized adults because they made a mistake, or yes, even are truly incapable of understanding metaphor, is ableism, asshat.
"Is it ableism to expect an adult to [be able to] do/understand-"
Let me stop you right there. If you're asking if it's ableism to expect someone to do something - mentally or physically, as even something like understanding is a neurological process - then yes! It's fucking ableism! Because there's virtually nothing that's impossible for a disabled person to be unABLE to do, and especially one of the neurodivergent DISABILITY symptoms that's so common as to be a stereotype.
(No, it's not a false stereotype. It's less common than the stereotype suggests, mind you, but I'm not going to throw my siblings with that symptom under the bus because of it.)
Next time maybe just take the time to EXPLAIN to someone instead of basically saying "lol these id*ots think it's ableist to judge them for not being able to immediately understand this actually fairly complex concept that requires significant critical thought without help just because I falsely think I'm really good at the same concept (which, even if they were good at reading comprehension would be just as bad, but it adds some irony due to their hypocrisy)".
Anyway tl;dr I wouldn't share a cup of piss or entrust a pet rock to the person saying that, given that they are in fact a massive ableist and are likely even worse than we have full context for given the prevalence of the ableism bad faith misinterpretations and manipulative reframing of them as a form of ableism itself used to shut down discussions of ableism overall.
Oh, and bonus, aside from the whole "this isn't a clear metaphor and I'm reinterpreting your words in the worst faith possible and making fun of you for not understanding something...
Some people are incapable of the puppy one, even at a metaphorical level, because they are too disabled to take care of even the simplest living creature. Hell, "trust to do a task" can be something you can't do with severely disabled people. AND some people are often unable to give you their time, especially in person nowadays but sometimes even over safely distanced video calls and such. They should be ACTIVELY AVOIDED because they're not able to spend time with you?
I get that this wasn't the point the original was making, because it didn't consider the nuances of the disabled experience. People rarely do. This is about abled people. And yes, you can make an argument about "people I want to spend time with even if they can't always" vs "people I don't" or "people I need to rely on for tasks" vs "people I don't", but perhaps you should check and make SURE you're not in fact being biased by ableism into not wanting to hang out with good caring friends because they can't often do so, or relying on them for tasks they've told you they can't do but you're putting on them anyway.
Nearly every disabled person with more than minimal support needs has experienced the "friend exodus" when they become disabled/chronically ill. A video call becomes an "inconvenience" when it's really just that the abled person has a preference to hang out in person despite doing so quite literally being less convenient (and often, they are not safe for an immunocompromised person to be around).
Many of the same people have also experienced the "oh of course you can do it/you used to be able to so you need to now/you're the only one who can do it so you need to magically overcome your disability and do so/well do you just not do [chore] in your own home (what do you think home help aides are for?!?)/well you did it the other day (yes, with serious health consequences, and/or as someone whose abilities fluctuate from day to day".
Like I'm not sorry that I'm not sorry. Abled people shut up forever. Disabled people with low support needs and relative privilege? Stay in your lane and STOP with the assimilationist "well I'm disabled and I can do this/don't need this/don't think I'm perpetrating lateral ableism against disabled people with higher support needs". If you've been guilty of this (as I myself have been in the past!) just fucking apologize and do better! Don't DOUBLE DOWN because you refuse to face up to your own guilt and remorse!
Yes, all that is a reading of what the author said that wasn't intended and isn't present in the text. Knowing that is reading comprehension, and how's that for critical thought? Expanding on how a passage exhibits indirect bias influenced by disabled erasure and influences and shapes the attitudes of people who ARE ableist because of THEIR pre-existing biases... y'know, I get the urge to make fun, because I'm also pissed the fuck off, but actually I'll not give into the urge to do so because that would be hypocritical and ableist.
Instead I will say if you would like me to expand on that, or explain it better, or honestly use simpler language because I know I use high level words all the time, I am genuinely ALWAYS happy to talk about it with you and help people understand.
My frustration is with the people who do understand but wilfully refuse to genuinely engage with it and listen and have a real dialogue, and instead get defensive and double down on their ableism - and the second part is the part I have an issue with. I can't actually tell if someone is being ableist because they genuinely don't understand - in which case they need to ask questions or simply not speak over us as if they are an expert - or because they are pretending not to (which is a behavior I recognize from my past self, hence naming it at all).
It's not really about the understanding. It's about how you respond to it. Naming both is important because to be better, people need to respond to them differently. They need to recognize whether they are getting defensive over a genuine struggle to understand what someone means or over a denying a recognition of their own complicity in ableism. Each has a slightly different solution, but both boil down to not asserting that the person complaining about ableism is wrong and either asking questions or doing some damn introspection to make sure you root out your OWN ableist biases and are a better ally (as an abled person) or not hindering disabled liberation by being an assimilationist (as a disabled person).
Anyway look out for an essay eventually on the specific phenomenon of this manipulation of disabled people's conversations on ableism to shut them down. We will have it up as soon as the hyperfocus strikes.
13 notes
·
View notes
What if I theologized hanahaki? What then? Like if hanahaki was a symbol of unrequited love that desperately wants to be requited? Because God so loves us enough to want to be with us but also loves us enough to hold back lest His holiness turn us to ash because the flowers have become so embedded in us. So what if the flowers are a sign of our own rejection of God and the desperate craving we all have deep inside for Him...but also our way of melding with something that needs to go and thus being unable to be saved from it because we made it us in a sense? Like...
...
There’s a new wave of people who claim to be without the Flower Rot, also known as Hanahaki and Hua Bing.
These people claim that, without surgery, they have managed to completely remove the Rot. When asked what had caused this, one woman who wished to remain anonymous told the reporters, “It was…God, I guess. But He was also a man. He just…said that because the Rot’s too rooted in us, even if we wanted God we’d just burn with the flowers. But the only way’s to have His love take it away. So He said He’d take Rot and fade because He was a man, then come back because He’s God, and give us love to remove the Rot because He’s both.”
Her explanation aligns with similar ones from other witnesses with the Rot gone. They claim that the risk of fading with the removal of the flowers was taken by a man. But that His Godliness also signified that He could “grant His love” to permanently dispel the Rot.
As a refresher, it is quite unclear why the Rot suddenly began to manifest inside our lungs millennia ago. The most common legend is a tale of how humanity and God once lived in harmony in a garden. However, one day, man rejected God and told Him they could create a garden of their own. Though He offered a chance to repent from their rejection, having told them previously that such an endeavour would bring death upon them, they refused to acknowledge their wrong and were thus severed from His power and acceptance.
The proud declaration of humanity was not a nonsense claim, as they indeed found they could produce beautiful plant life for a garden.
However, that came with the cost of death, for these flowers grew inside them and were expelled through bloody coughs and sneezes.
Such is the duality of this universal Rot—a sign of divine rejection, some say, or a sign of our own ability to create beauty made more glorious through our own sacrifice, as others say. Of course, there are others who say this Rot is more complicated than simply a sign of our glory or a rejection from the divine, but those claims as much less popular.
In recent times, science has discovered that this Rot is simply a natural and inborn function of our body. “In fact, it’s inaccurate to call such a natural part of human experience a rot,” Doctor Kinuyo Yahagi of Hanahaki Research Association said, showing a bloodied purple iris of hers. “Yes, it is unpleasant but it is a fact of life, just like death and hunger and blood.” She then gave an animated explanation how there was a particular genetic wiring within our lungs linked to the brain’s rejection and affection chemicals. If the two are stirred in such a way, a pathway is made from the brain to the lungs triggering the genetic code and causing flowers to bloom.
“It can be removed by surgery,” a surgeon from the local medical center said. “However, studies have shown it is risky as it can affect your ability to love and process rejection, so it’s up to the patient to take the risk or not.”
Activists have cried that a difficulty in loving is not a sign of deteriorating humanity, and that those who choose the surgery are still acceptable.
“Hanahaki or not, we all still die, right?” a video of one academic debate records a professor speaking to one of the new Rot-less people.
The Rot-less person—a professor as well—nods thoughtfully. “Yes, but now, my death becomes a death without the disease signalling our separation from the divine, which is no true death at all.”
The ethics of removing the Flower Rot surgically still are debated, though much support for it has arisen in the past few decades. Research into these new rot-less people has also steadily increased, all done with the utmost legal and ethical restrictions to the volunteer’s rights.
“Hopefully, we’ll get to the bottom of this and find a better way to remove the disease,” Dr. Yahagi’s co-worker who wished to remain anonymous said. “Natural or not, it is still unpleasant. Why continue with something that is now proven to not be inevitable?”
8 notes
·
View notes