Nuance - Tumblr Posts
Trying to settle a debate
I was talking with my dad recently & we got on the topic of People Thinking They Can't Do Things, and like, he is at his core a well-intentioned person who genuinely wants the best for others, but he has definitely internalized some harmful ideas a la "anyone can do anything, the only thing stopping them is their own attitude". so I was like. I see where you're coming from, but let me tell you a story.
last year, I worked with 10 year olds- many of whom had never really spent time outdoors- in an outdoor education program where they came to spend a whole week doing shit outside in nature. the top two scariest experiences for these kids were 1) very tall metal tower, and 2) walking outside at night in the dark with no flashlights.
I tried a lot of different things to persuade them all to join me for each experience: I presented it with enthusiasm and passion, I did physical demonstrations and scientific explanations to help them understands how safe it was, I voiced my absolute commitment to their safety, I invited them to brainstorm ways to help each other and themselves feel safe, etc.
generally I always had at least 2-3 kids out of about 10 who opted out, or if they did join me, would spend the entire experience crying and freaking out. when it was over, they would conclude that even though they did not die- or even get hurt- it was so scary that it wasn't worth it and they never wanted to do it again.
then I changed the question I asked. instead of asking them to tell me whether they could do it or couldn't do it, I asked them to raise their hand for one of three options:
You can definitely do this.
It will be hard or scary or uncomfortable, but you can try to do this.
It will definitely be too hard, scary, or uncomfortable, and you cannot or should not try to do this.
suddenly, almost nobody was opting out of these experiences.
they would try, even if they were scared, because they know that being scared didn't necessarily mean that they couldn't do it at all. and more importantly, they knew that if they needed to stop, that was an option; they weren't trapped in their decision to try.
and the real takeaway here, for me, is in the nuance: people need to be able to challenge themselves and to be uncomfortable in order to grow, and people need to be able to opt out in order for opting in to be a safe option.
The thing that abled people who advocate for the disabled community don’t get is that there are times when disabilities/accommodations clash. Horribly.
Like I spent years having to come up with a solution to get therapy dogs into a series of residence halls. Why years? Because we had to decide who got to stay and who got to leave: the people who needed therapy dogs or the people with severe allergies to animals. Who got the alternative housing?
Things like fidget toys might seem great for some disabled people but having them in the room could be distracting/overstimulating for others. The same goes with stimming. It can’t be helped but neither can the anxiety that another person in the room feels as they watch/hear it. Additionally, something like a weighted blanket might immediately calm one kid down and send the other one into a panic attack due to the claustrophobia it causes. (*Points to myself*)
Every Metro bus in New York City has a series of seats at the front that can be lifted up to accommodate people in wheelchairs but if I’m in one of those spots then someone with a cane/walker has to journey even further to sit down.
The flashing lights of a fire alarm are there to help deaf/hearing impaired but if they’re not properly timed, they can also cause a person to have a seizure.
The worst part about all of these is that there is rarely a concrete solution that makes everyone happy/safe. And I’m not here to offer any because I don’t know them. I’m just here to remind you all that as you’re taking your education/health classes, as you’re reading your textbooks, as you’re preparing to go be an advocate, just remember that there is rarely ever such a thing as a one-size-fits-all solution to advocacy and that something you do that can help one disabled person might actually hinder another.
Food for thought.
one of the most important things, perhaps the most important thing I have learned in my life is that nice people can fuck each other up in monstrous ways. people can be bone deep kind and loving and self reflective and still lash out under pressure. people can be earnestly neighbourly and charitable and hospitable and generous and still find themselves in situations where they become selfish. people can be well meaning and easygoing and gregarious and hold deep seated opinions that turn them into vicious little bullies under the right conditions. nobody is just one thing, and nobody stays one way. every person is a kaleidoscope and they will surprise you. you will surprise yourself. it's not a warning and it's not a judgement and it's not an excuse, and it's certainly not a reason to stop trying or to stop trusting. it is just a fact.
actually now that i'm thinking about it. every single video game that lets you costumize characters but doesn't let you be fat is extremely revealing to the fact that most people can't imagine fat as something a person would want to be. there's other examples but like, fuck, i can't even choose to be fat in imaginary spaces. My size isn't accommodated for because they couldn't imagine a player who wants to be anything other than skinny.
Like, you see it right. How media shapes people's beliefs, and people construct beliefs into the things they create? If all you can ever choose to be in a game is one of two body shapes, and you have to physically alter the game to be anything bigger, like. "why would i imagine a world with you in it."
Do you use a fake name online?
No, not at all
Yes, fake first name, real/no last name
Yes, fake last name, real/no first name
Yes, fake first and last
Yes, I have a whole fake Internet persona*
Nuance
*so not only do you use a fake name, you might also have a fake hometown, fake likes and dislikes, a fake birth date not in the context of lying about your age, etc.
*so not only do you use a fake name, you might also have a fake hometown, fake likes and dislikes, a fake birth date not in the context of lying about your age, etc.
Also: very very many zoo animals (the residents, not the species) are unsuitable to be in the wild anyway for various reasons. Some are from sanctuaries and have been injured or rejected by their population or parents, etc. A lot of them are from zoo stock to begin with. Reputable zoos even avoid using money to value their animals (they do trades instead) specifically to de-incentivize the kind of bounty hunting - poaching - which really is a destructive practice. And don't forget the unfortunate fact that most people have to see things in order to care about them, or at least feel some kind of connection or experience to them. How many kids started loving animals and caring about the environment because they saw a tiger or an elephant at age 8 and wanted to know everything about the creature?!
It makes me sad to see how common the hate for zoos is in leftist circles. To me, zoos are so symbolic of the determination and optimism in leftist thought that I often use these facilities as an example to keep me going. So when I hear fellow leftists wanting to abolish zoos it makes breaks my spirit a bit. Especially considering how necessary zoos are in the fight against the current environmental crisis.
I am the first to admit that no zoo is perfect. I have worked at a world class, accredited, non-profit zoo and it was FAR from perfect. The institution treated me and the other workers like shit. Burnout, lean staffing, and poor adherence to safety protocols resulted in poorer animal welfare outcomes for the animals. And this is a world class facility. There are many facilities out there that shouldn't exist at all that are hardly better than the menageries of feudal kings.
BUT
Zoos are vital if we want our ecosystems to survive the current mass extinction event.
No other type of institution on earth has saved as many species as zoos. From tiny snails to 1-ton bison, entire species have been returned to the wild thanks to their preservation in zoos.
There are approximately 40 animal species listed as Extinct in the Wild by the IUCN, most of which ONLY exist in zoos and aquariums. Many of these animals are only able to be taken care of because of the decades of animal husbandry science and institutional knowledge built up by our zoos and aquaria by working with other species.
There are many extinctions I cry for, but the ones that hurt the most are the ones happening in front of our eyes. The Javan rhino is all but gone. It's estimated that there would need to be about 100 rhinos for the species to survive genetically intact. There are now less than that, and none in human care. All it would take is a single tsunami or volcanic eruption and the entire population could be wiped out.
But if there were some in human care, if we had acted sooner and established a breeding population based on the centuries of knowledge we have of caring for their closest relative, the Indian rhino, we could have saved them.
So, when I see leftists talking about how all zoos are inherently destructive, I ask you to think ahead. To when polar bears, chimpanzees, or elephants go extinct in their natural homes, don't you want a place where we can save them? Where experienced animal care professionals can foster a population in human care so that one day these creatures can return to their homes? A global system of world class facilities dedicated to the survival of wildlife? So even more creatures don't end up like the Javan rhino; a species we could've saved if we'd had the will and the space to do so? If there had more zoos instead of less?
I'm not asking you to love zoos, I'm just asking that you recognize the practical necessity of their existence in the modern age. We won't survive the coming crises without other species. And they won't survive without us.
i was talking about this with my sister and im curious now
guys i need you to be less comfortable making super negative comments abt a character in the tags of a random post abt that character. like i support haterism but make your own post. please stop and think about whether op, a person who is interested in this character enough to make posts abt them, wants to hear all that. i see this too much from people reblogging from me and it makes me embarrassed that you’re reblogging from me. you are being rude
Digital Nuance, Public Discourse, and Public Approval: The Steady Decline of "Having a Dialogue"
Being on the internet as someone who operates from a place of nuance and complexity as opposed to simplistic and impulsive knee-jerk reactions feels like being a masochist because there's so much you could say but it would take too long to write out and mostly fall on deaf ears.
It also doesn't help that although there are many people out there that are happy to have these complex discussions, you're much less likely to find people who are capable of doing so in a way that doesn't convey the idea that the only perspective they're open to is theirs.
This mentality is not just aggravating to deal with as someone who wants to contribute to these discussions, but actively drives people away from having them, which is incredibly counterintuitive given how much stress and importance is constantly placed on speaking on issues.
This, if anything, calls into question why stress is even placed on having discussions about any topic. If there's supposedly only one right view and thus solution to an issue, why even start a dialogue in the first place? To talk in circles? Unless, they're not that simple...
It's a rare occurrence, but my faith in humanity is slightly restored whenever I see what could've easily turned into a heated argument about a topic beautifully and amicably resolve itself with each party respecting each others views without attacking them.
Though, I feel like the concept of "ratioing" people is what holds us back from these occurrences happening. I can't help but feel that people on the internet are less concerned about actually defending their argument, and more about whether other people will back it up.
Saying this, I can already hear people defending ratioing because of how it supposedly "puts people in their place" and makes them feel shame for what is mostly agreed to be the morally or intellectually incorrect way of analyzing a topic.
Again though, why should the focus of having an opinion be attempting to "prove" that it's the so-called "right" one through public approval which is also nothing more than simply a larger group of people's opinions?