I honestly think that it’s totally fine to ask for citations and I also would have loved to see them. Furthermore I also really think that it was much more reasonable to ask the second person for the citation than the first one so I am in total agreement with you.

And I do really want to clarify that I was honestly just commenting on the doomy comment of: „a reflection of our times“ Because this really just felt more like an anchor effect hypothesis moment to me of being biased by the first data input however outrageous it may seem.

Even if you had casted doubt (which I again don’t think you did) that would’ve been fine and healthy I would argue. I love it when people ask for citations and then even read through them and discuss the limitations of it, I think that’s fucking awesomesauce and I’m glad people like you can read it and share their insights on it.

Long story short I was sharing another - to me more plausible - explanation of the vote distribution. Hope you have a lovely day and this kerfuffle did not discourage you from exploring and sharing the interest details of the world.

(god I should really learn to write more concise)

Maybe, but they could’ve also posted the same request for citations on the first poster but did not.

I think that really does reflect how someone can just say whatever and when challenged we are biased to only assume the second opinion as doubtful.

this is so cute, I love it thanks for sharing it!

I mean okay if I read this in good faith I think you are kind of addressing this weirdly.

You can say something ableist without „meaning to do harm“. It really just is a phrase that has been used in really grotesque fashion in the past and we do live in a context. We might just have a fundamental disagreement on how we think about discourse.

As you have said you could make the same point without using this exact phrase so I firstly don’t believe that your opinion is suppressed on the topic. Secondly I think as able-bodied people sometimes it just is not our right or place to say that language that has hurt marginalised people can be used by us or redeemed for that matter because we just talk about ourselves.

Again yes I think you should be empowered to control your life and the end of it. And there are many ways to say this instead of: Id rather die than be (insert marginalised group).

Maybe as a different minority I can only offer that it just feels icky to me if another group wants to use words that have been used against me because that’s the way they want to express themselves. That’s why I engaged with your question in good faith

I would say there is a HUGE difference between saying:

I‘d rather die than be disabled and I‘d rather die than have to live with some disabilities.

The former is really just saying: any disability makes life not worth living and the latter at least acknowledges that there are only a few disabilities you would deign to be „too much“ for you.

But the general problem with this „stance“ I would say is that we are talking about human lives. If we talk about what we would like to eat its kind of whatever. But in this case you are saying that people with (some) disabilities have lives that you say you don’t think are worth living. People with disabilities have gotten killed for this, because abled-bodied people just say what they think and their opinions are seen as more reliable, natural and important.

So yes, I would also say that the phrase is a clearly ableist position. You can argue that it is „just a personal position“ sure, it’s still ableist though and uses the same framework of eugenicists for example. And of course you can still hold that position. But maybe give it a thought on why that is your opinion.

Have you ever listened or talked to different disabled people on their experiences or is this more a gut feeling? Why are you drawing such a hard line? Is this more a perspective on assisted suicide?