When you look at it like that, then what Google and Apple is doing does not fit this point of view. They are (extremely) powerful entities imposing themselves on the whole world.

_THAT_ is flexibility.

You think it's the disabled person's responsibility to never put a burden on others when others' expectations puts an unreasonable amount of burdens.

And we're talking about this specific kind of disability, but as someone else said in a sibling comment, it could be anything. Imagine you really have to go to the bathroom for some reason (pregnancy, diarrhea, ...). That can happen to a lot of people. Should all of them be prevented from being accepted into class ?

That's why we speak about "empathy, tolerance, flexibility". Empathy towards the weaker few, not empathy towards the "normal" many.

[1]: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hypersomnia/s...

We are way too many, and the #1 source of global warming is human activity. At one point we'll have to stop growing, so the system of how we pay for elderly care has to change.

> the thing so many of people with these views have in a common is they feel no shame about the harm they are causing.

> If in your own opinion you did something wrong, you should absolutley feel shame

It implies that the list of people you don't like think they did something wrong but refuse to feel shame about it.

To me, all those people are not shameless - in the sense that they don't feel shame _at all_ -, but don't feel shame because they don't feel like they did something wrong (how can you think you're wrong when you don't _believe_ in climate change ?).

So shame in itself is not the problem.

Like many people, I think the war on drugs was a terrible idea. But preventing huge pharmaceuticals companies from selling drugs isn't.

We could be a lot less humans on earth, it would be amazing for the environment, and I think we'd be as happy.

The only downside I see is economic (in the sense that everything is built with the expectation of growth). But it is to me an economic problem, and not a reproduction problem.

A little nitpick : you seem to imply that buying a book is having an influence on parenting skills. I'd argue that's its correlated but does not have a direct influence.

As you said, if you're buying a book it means you're ready for self-reflection, which is what has an impact on parenting.

That's not discrimination. The problem is when you assume someone isn't the best candidate because of (pick (religion, origin, language, disability, ...)) but you don't know that.

A lot of people have used your way of thinking to justify discrimination. "Obviously foreign people are less educated. I'm just looking for the best candidate so I should not interview someone with a foreign name". How can you be sure that _you_ are not discriminating ?

> I love it when people from internet forums are telling me what my job is.

So you don't agree that your job is to hire the best person without discrimination ? Or you don't agree that giving people the proper tools allow them to be the best version of themselves ?

> This would encourage people to participate in smaller communities, which could be really nice for keeping the "small town" vibe of early reddit.

Couldn't it also cause a fragmentation of content across different same-ish subs ?

I agree it is not simple, but it proves it is doable.

So for me your example does not count as a label. Is there no nuance at all between "being hungry" and "being disabled" in english ? If so, you're right, my argument does not stand.

> Imagine calling a midget "A person with less height" or some nonsense like that.

I think midget is pejorative so this is not a very good example. But I don't know much about that so I'll take your argument as if it wasn't at all.

I should have added that this is of course useful in some contexts. If you are talking to a specific person, then changing the language isn't very useful (except if this specific person feels the term is offensive, but that does not mean we should all change how we speek).

Where it is more useful, for example, is when you talk about limitations due to a problem. You are writing an article about height problems ? No need to say it's about dwarfism, there are other small people that might relate. You're a store and design a special help to get objects on high shelves ? No need to call it "dwarf help" or "midget help", but just "help for small people" or even "high shelf help".

In this case this is not about thinking about how to describe a person with a certain medical situation. It is about taking a step back and removing the medical situation altogether.

This applies much more to "deaf"/"hearing impaired" (or whatever, my argument is about generalizing, not about a specific term). A lot more people have difficulty hearing than are completely deaf.

Knowing about it is good. Trying to think about what your language implies is good. Forbidding the usage of words is obviously extreme and bad.

While we don't have any problem with the term disabled, I can see some advantages to the "people first language" and try to use it when I can - but I agree it's often way more simple/clear to say "disabled", "blind", etc...

The advantages are :

  - Including temporarily disabled people (maybe more in french than english). If you break your legs and spend a few months in a wheelchair, you might not feel legitimate to use the term "disabled" in comparison to someone who has never been able to walk and suffers more from it. I'd also add my personal story: I suffer from chronic pain that is very incapacitating in my life. I don't feel legitimate when I call myself disabled. It's not temporary, but it's not as clear as blindness etc... Using people-first language feels more right.
  - Including more person means reducing stigma and reducing the gap between abled/disabled.
  - Not letting that disabilty define you as a person. I am not disabled, I am Sunderw, a complicated person with many different aspects.

[Edit: formatting]

It think it's a gray area right now though.

I would add that while you don’t necessarily need your life to have a purpose, having a job (or hobbies) that have a purpose is important. Whether the purpose is helping others, knowledge, money… just find something that has meaning to you.

That wasn’t the original poster’s question though, but Thought it would be a nice precision.

You also used the word "value", which I think is more on point.

We all have a different set of values. If you do things that are in conflict with those values, you will feel bad. So finding a job where the most important values you have are fulfilled is a key point to being happy.

I don't have any particular resource, but I think there must be a lot of books on how to find and understand those values. I personnally worked on that with a therapist.

My example :

I was working in a 45k-employee engineering service company (not sure of the english translation), where I was working on an ERP software for (military) aviation. The tech stack and the human organization was terrible.

It conflicted with some of my values (knowledge, peace, creativity, autonomy...) and was starting to make me feel anxious and angry. I also felt that what I did had no real purpose.

I knew I needed a place where kindness and knowledge were important. When I finally found that, working in a place were I feel the end product makes the world better, my life really was better.

Also, combining your main job plus building a startup must have been very hard. Do you have an idea of how many hours you spent working each week in total ? I'm asking that because I too have a disability, and it's very hard for me to work more than 20h per weeks, but I'd love to start my own startup one day...

Have a great day too :)