idk i am constantly trying to break down internal resistances mapping where ableism intersects my own interests and/or where ableism is to my interest as counterleverage to other forms of oppression to which i would otherwise succumb. i don't think this fraught position, when disclosed, makes me a particularly reassuring presence for other disabled people and this does pain me i just haven't quite yet figured out how to position myself better than this in my current circumstances. i value a lot of relationships i have built here so yk sorry for that, always feel free to unfollow over anything i write on the topic i do know those resistances exist

talking with a volunteer in community homes for children: "and you know a lot of them have eating disorders due to years of issues accessing food in their previous homes. so of course we are 'teaching' them to eat 'right' by forcing them to eat 2 healthy meals a day. we all sit down and tell them no one of the other children is allowed to get up until everyone has eaten everything on their plate. it's been working wonders". i want to explode you with my mind

it really is so common in fandom spaces to see the question "who has The Power in the relationship?". as if there can only be one recipient of it at a time, as if all power has the same content and conditions. and sure sometimes things really are that unilateral but the assumption of this is hardly a neutral place to start your questioning

as soon as you say excluding accountability (legal or otherwise) for es. children and many psychiatrised people is no solution but part of conditions spelling their disempowerment, you immediately get inundated with people asking: so you think we should send children to prison??? regardless of the immediate bad faith, i do think it is worth clarifying my critique here is one of form not of content of the law. a system of justice that predicates the possibility and need of identifying responsibility for harm in a highly individualised form, standing on the assumption participants to this system are separate entities representing each their own interests, operating out of their entirely autonomous free will through a socially-unmediated process of decision-making, and having equal possibilities to affect the world around them, can really only exclude people that can't maintain this illusion of self-efficacy, there is just no place for a version of justice that meaningfully includes them. you can't intervene on the content of rules and change this fact

like, at some point, i think i had someone telling me that a depressed person is physically incapable of hurting others because depression famously renders you unable to do anything and i keep maintaining you really can't call others ableist and incurious while standing on this kind of hills. 1) depressed people are hardly a monolith, the synthesis of experiences grouped under this label covers extremely different circumstances, i don't think such generalised statements get us anywhere. 2) there are such a variety of ways to harm others 100 years of incessant talking would not be enough to list them all. i can assure you people entirely incapable of exercising even one of them are very few. 3) i really do think a lot of these arguments actually come down to the idea mentally ill people can't be held responsible for their actions because their damaged brains are fundamentally incapable of producing any meaningful rational and moral considerations and i must object to that

third element was that louis is depicted as suffering from a series of issues in the realm of what could be defined as mental illness in psychiatrised terms and that this further entrenched conflict between faction 1, using his mental "instability" as proof of all genre of evil intents in extremely bad faith, and faction 2, proposing depressed people are idk ontologically incapable of abusing others? it was very weird and at times distressing. i don't like to overplay the card "as a person that has lived through this" on the internet for many reasons (among which the fact that subjective interpretations of a singular experience do not structural analysis make) but i did feel like every single day someone was telling me "you stupid idiot, what you propose as the content of your life is simply beyond the realm of the real"