You're viewing a single thread.
Of all the things you could reasonably criticize the US over, wheelchair accessibility ain't one of them. Especially compared to Europe.
I thought the idea was that Republicans are actively working on destroying what has been working fine and is benefitting lots of people, not just on preventing more progress.
Are you referring to something specific?
Abortion rights, voting rights, gay marriage, privacy, trans rights, immigration, housing, the economy, net neutrality, take your pick.
The topic at hand is wheelchair accessibility, though.
Nope. The topic at hand is free ice-ceam. A topic that you, as a rational adult, can understand that is 100% literal and not at hyperbolic example to make a point about general trends and not a single specific item.
A topic that you, as a rational adult, can understand
Massive assumption tbqh
Then somehow I'm in the wrong thread.
Yes the willfully oblivious thread is elsewhere
Not specifically. They just picked a random idea out of a hat. One that is currently working fine with no issue. To signify that is the type of stuff they go after.
Which takes us back to my first comment.
Are you suggesting that Finland is offering free ice cream?
Just in case you're sincerely confused, no I'm not suggesting that.
Let me break down the original post for you, since you're refusing to understand it for some reason. Free ice cream is a ridiculous thing that would never happen, but would be amazing if it did, and countries like Finland seem to often be in the news for doing amazing things. Banning wheelchair ramps is a ridiculous thing that would never happen, but would be terrible if it did, and the USA seems to often be in the news for doing terrible things. You understand the meaning of a hyperbole - you're just being obtuse.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1C022I/
Tldr, they're actually trying and have been trying, to pass bills to gut the ADA because disability access is anti American.
Also, the post is just making fun of the US consistently doing messed up stuff. When picking something for hyperbole, you usually pick something that's extreme, not something that actually already happened.
it's not quite as funny to say "the news is always like: former US president argues he should legally be able to do whatever he wants without consequences and courts might let him, meanwhile Finland has nearly eradicated homelessness." You do get that the point was to be funny?That proposal died in Congress 7 years ago.
We Americans are not the monstrous caricatures you make us out to be. We're not evil. We're not wicked. And the US is not some dystopian nightmare. It's actually a pretty good place to live.
The proposal shouldn't have existed in the first place! There wouldn't be a need to kill the proposal if our representation was composed of empathetic decent people, instead of ghouls bought out by the wealthy few.
It's pretty monstrous to even consider proposing a removal of legislation that objectively helps a lot of Americans.
Therefore, all Americans are evil. Got it.
Nope, you're either just a moron with shit reading comprehension skills, or you're a sealioning troll.
I never said anything about all Americans, I said a portion of our representatives have proposed gutting ADA protections, which is pretty universally liked in America.
First, I live in the US, so not sure where you're going with that.
Second, nice straw man. No one said Americans were evil, people said the news is often distressing and backwards.
Third, it doesn't matter when it's from when your argument was "America would never assail disability rights!". An article about recent efforts by active politicians to rollback our biggest protections speaks to that. In any case, here's a more recent article on the topic: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/midterm-elections-republicans-disabled-community_n_6375a759e4b0afce046aefefFour, you're entirely lacking in nuance or a sense of humor, and seen incapable of distinguishing a joke from "all Americans are evil", which is definitely a way to live, but not a very productive one if you ask me.
Alright. If the message isn't "hurr durr americans r dum and ebil!!!11", then what is it?
You've literally had it explained to you a dozen times in this thread.
"America seems to be backsliding policy wise, and other countries seem to be implementing extremely pleasant policies. The contrast is absurd".
It's a "joke".
That's an example used in the OP meme, but the context still suggest all those other things, too. That's what the "news is always like" part is. You can replace wheel chair access with all sorts of things and the meme would still ring true.
The context of this thread is my criticism of that example.
Finland did not in fact make ice cream free, but you don't challenge that. This is a meme, it could have said anything that sounds grotesquely arbitrary and callous, like banning left handed scissors, even if two-handed tools are probably more easily available in America than in many other parts of the world, perhaps even Finland.
Except the OP's point would be much better made by criticizing something the US doesn't actually do pretty well at.
Wouldn't it?
No. It would be weakened. The point is America is taking things we're good at and rolling them back. It loses its point if you pick something we've always been bad at.
The point is America is taking things we’re good at and rolling them back. It loses its point if you pick something we’ve always been bad at.
That seems backwards and ridiculous to me.
It wasn't criticising anything though. It was a hyperbole, an outlandishly absurd proposition that nobody in their right mind would take seriously. Well, almost nobody I suppose.
Nonsense. Humor and hyperbole are often used to criticize.
Check the thread as a whole, my guy. Your critique of the example isn't where people started disagreeing with you, but the secondary argument you made when someone said the meme itself isn't just about wheel chair accessibility.
Literally the first comment was disagreeing.
The joke is that the wheelchair example is wrong. And neither is Finland making ice cream free. The context is that these are both ridiculous examples, not that the poster is critiquing USA wheelchair accessibility.
It's a fucking similie. Stop being so goddamned literal.
As if Democrats don't do the exact same thing in lock step. Interesting where your focus lies however. It's helpful though because it indicates your bias.
The ignorance you're showing here is absolutely astounding. Banning things and removing certain people's rights is a defining part of US republican politics. Every damn week, there's a new thing they've decided is evil and needs to be banned. That's very much not the case with US democrat politics. Sure, there are things they too want to ban or change, but it's based on logic and not a constant stream of new things.
Yes, thankfully the Democrats aren't the party of trying to ban stuff. Imagine if they were, and came out of nowhere to like ban gas stoves, gas cars, freedom of medical choices, and gender affirming surgery for kids. If any of that was true then I'd have a pretty good point, but thankfully it isn't. Right?
It's helpful though because it indicates your bias.
Lol.
It's purposefully hyperbolic to illustrate a point. You think that Finland is seriously making all ice cream free?
I would not be the least bit surprised if all the Abbotts and Thomases and Trumps and Desantises (Desanti?) announced tomorrow that they would no longer be supporting the ADA's immoral drain on
commercial profitsgovernmental budgets.And before someone points it out, gutting a system that he has personally benefited from to fuck over Texans is exactly the kind of thing Abbott would do.
They would never make the fish flavored ice cream free. The economy would collapse.
We don't have fish flavored one, but we got ice cream that tastes like ammonium chloride
Wut.
It's like eating a cat turd from a snow bank.
I'm gonna need an ingredients list..
And before someone points it out, gutting a system that he has personally benefited from to fuck over Texans is exactly the kind of thing Abbott would do.
Not would, he has. After the tree crippled him, he sued for his wealth. Then he outlawed the same type of payouts for the exact type of lawsuits he benefited from. Definition of pulling the ladder up behind you.
My point is that it's not a good illustration.
Just read through some of the responses I've gotten. Some people think it's a good illustration because it's very plausible. Some because it's not at all plausible.
I'm saying it's not a good illustration because it's not at all plausible.
Other than all the conservative efforts to destroy the ADA I guess.
I don't think it makes much difference whether or not it is plausible. It's just trying to communicate a message. I guess it has to be plausible enough that a reader can understand what it is even talking about; but not so plausible that the reader is led to believe this specific case is actually happening.
That's just one more interpretation to add to the ones I mentioned.
Which is fundamentally my point. Had the OP used something that is actually happening then it would be harder to interpret the message in unintended ways. And it would be much more readily accepted by Americans like myself who do not see themselves as evil, stupid, malicious, or any of the other insults that necessarily follow from any interpretation the OP.
On the other hand, disallowin wheelchair ramps because there are not mentioned in the Bible would be a very American move.
Equal access to every building? Sounds like a commie plot.
A very southern American move
obligatory mention that it's not "The South," but ~30 minutes outside of any metro area in the US.
Evangelical Christian assholes are not uniquely southern, have you been anywhere outside of a city in any state?
They are much more powerful and prevalent down here, however. The bible belt is absolutely a real thing.
20 years ago yeah. Now it's everywhere.
Aka backwards fucking stupid American.
Americans are not the caricatures of evil and malice you seem to think we are.
You are currently debating whether hospitals can let women die instead of performing abortions
It's painful to admit, but American politicians do not actually represent Americans. Over 80% of us believe abortion should be legal under some if not all circumstances. We are being held hostage by an ignorant minority.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx
If your politicians don't represent the people, what the heck are they doing?
Or, why do your people still vote for them?
Because the party that most people don't vote for have become exceedingly adept at gaming the system.
Then do something about it.
But your other party won't change it either, because they use the same loopholes.
Our democratic process is heavily flawed. The electoral college distorts the relative power votes so that less populated states have more power.
Also, less than half of eligible adults vote, and those that do are disproportionately conservative boomers.
Only about 20% of the population voted for trump. Everyone else either didn't care, didn't think he could win, or didn't want him to win.
The problem is that the non-Trumpers care to little to go to the voting booths.
You can become president of the United States with only 22% of the votes. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&pp=ygUaY2dwIGdyZXkgZWxlY3RvcmFsIGNvbGxlZ2U%3D
You're hastily summarizing some stupid political hit piece as the totality of what everyone in the country thinks. That's incredibly lazy thinking. What country are you from where everyone thinks the same exact way and the news accurately reports it?
Evil and malicious? Of course not. Mislead by a tailor-made Christian cult that always supports whatever the cult leader thinks is important? Literally nothing more American than that. We have a state that was founded for that propose. The largest, consistent voting block in America is fueled by exactly this.
Of course we're not but "the supreme court bans something good because it's not explicitly allowed in a 200 year old document" is a goddamn accurate statement lol
Have you told your leaders that?
That really hurts.
Especially compared to Europe?
What? Europe very sound protection for the disabled. Putside of historical buildings built before disability care you won't find better access anywhere.
I get America is pretty good too, but your comment makes it sound like Europe is a nightmare for the disabled.
Not sure about how good or bad it is in the US, but in the Netherlands (a place that is known for good infrastructure) it's definitely not perfect.
I never realised until we got a baby and I started walking with a stroler. Way too often the sidewalk is inaccessible because of cars or bicycles. Also lots of places without ramps or elevators.
You have a sidewalk, that is obstructed sometimes. Having a sidewalk puts in like the top 10% of countries instantly lol
Wait next thing you tell me is that I can't complain about having too many people on bicycles on the bicycle roads?
You guys actually have bicycle roads...
Europe very sound protection for the disabled. Putside of historical buildings built before disability care you won't find better access anywhere.
But that's the point: Most buildings were built before disability care, and haven't been upgraded.* Think about your favorite restaurant, bar, kebab place, corner shop etc. – I don't think any of mine are wheelchair accessible. Also good luck taking a train in Germany, where many platforms aren't wheelchair accessible and they might or might not have a lift to get you into the train.
The Americans with Disabilites Act (ADA) is miles ahead of any legal framework that I'm aware of in Europe. The US is a broken country in many ways, but that doesn't mean that literally anything and everything has to be worse than in glorious Europe.
*The former is true for the US too, but the ADA still required many of them to make reasonable accomodations.
Think about your favorite restaurant, bar, kebab place, corner shop etc.
All have wheelchair ramps. Even the townhall that was built in the 1700s has a wheelchair ramp, as does the church built in the 1400s.
I only know a handful of places that are in the centre of dense cities that don't have them.
Then if I wanted to make comparisons to the US, yes lots of buildings are wheelchair acceptable, but they still expect you to drive between those buildings, even if you're disabled, so sidewalks and crossing points are abysmal.
America has way more wheelchair ramps due to the critically obese population, so the statement is still mostly true.
I get that Europe is pretty good too, but the OP makes it sound like America is a nightmare for the disabled.
You do see my point, you just don't like it.
If you wouldn't have put the last sentence into your first comment, your point would be fine. Same with your second comment
My comment is mild compared to the OP.
OP was hyperbolic and even tho, tu quoque arguments aren't very strong
It never even occurred to you that perhaps I wasn't being deadly serious and absolutely literal either?
No.
Permanently Deleted
You think this tweet is bout wheelchair accesibility??
I get what the tweet is trying to say. What I'm saying is that wheelchair accessibility is a particularly bad example for that point.
It's an excellent example. Politicians take something the US does great, and fuck it up because of their religious zealousy.
That's ridiculous.
Of course it's ridiculous. That doesn't stop it from being true.
It is indeed ridiculous that your politicians actively take away abortion right because of Christian zealots.
Tja
Lmao yes, we are one of the best in that regard.
Thank you American Disability Act!!
huh? america is absolute garbage for wheelchair access, the ADA is absolutely not sufficient
fuckin have fun navigating the average suburb with a wheelchair, you can't even walk to the store in most places
you can't even walk to the store in most places
Or roll into the store.
you can't even walk to the store in most places
I’d imagine walking to the store in a wheelchair to be incredibly difficult.
Technically in common disability parlance the motion of movement in a wheel chair is still considered "walking" just like listening to an audiobook is considered "reading" for visually impaired people.
Basically it accepts the whatever means you get to the end product as being a synonyms with the verbs those used by abled people.
Learned this from my librarian buddies.
i may in fact have meant actual walking on two legs, hence why i used the word "walk"
Google tells me that the US is ranked #5 in the world behind Japan, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands.
In most of America you can't walk to the store even if you don't use a wheelchair. At my old place I could see a grocery store from my house, but it was on the other side of a limited access road, I had to go 1.5miles to a pedestrian overpass to be able to get to it making it a 6 mile walk to get 100 yards.
that was my point, yes
To be fair a good chunk of the buildings in Europe are older than america.
New builds tend to take differently able people in mind these days
Europe didn't have a law about it until 2016.
Europe doesn't set all the rules at the EU level, this type of thing was probably law in many EU countries before it was law at the EU level.
Mellvar is completely wrong, the law was drafted in 2000, and became compulsory in 2009 because there were a couple of countries that hadn't complied
Not sure what agenda they're pushing, or if they're confused with the new law that says that all web based sites now have to be inclusive
Cool. Not sure how that counters anything I said though
It supports my point.
How so if anything it counters it. Europe had made changes to the law to ensure help.
While not being g in America there's a huge selection bias from the media no doubt tha sure as shit ain't happening
Because the US law was passed in 1990.
That's fair but it's also not the point of the post which is the us rolling back the laws that help people. Your just keeping an ultra narrow focus because you think it's helping hide that fact
My point is that it's a bad example.
Your just keeping an ultra narrow focus because you think it’s helping hide that fact
No I'm not.
While the wikipedia page you cite does have a section heading called "1945-1992", that's only because it uses WW2 and the EU treaty as endpoints. Not because laws were being passed in 1945. Moreover, the cited page doesn't list country-level laws in 1945-1992, it lists international treaties; and the earliest listed treaty is from 1953.