>>105689800>when it opens up by saying you're not allowed to criticize them if you yourself aren't disabledWhat bothers me is that this is the kind of thinking that's harmful for disabled people like myself.
Outside of just software, we require larger groups and bodies to advocate for us, legally in most aspects of life, whether it's advocacy on a personal level to deal with medical and insurance issues or on a legal level or even ensuring that proposed government welfare changes do not clash with the ECHR.
Disabled people rely very much on the third sector, volunteers and hard workers to allow us to have a shot at equal rights. And, believe it or not, while it sucks to accept that we do require this, we are thankful.
Moving to a feedback structure where you question if someone is disabled at all harms that advocacy, it harms people who do not have a wider reach. Yes. I want people to go out there and advocate on my behalf if they have a wider reach. I don't particularly care if the people at GNOME or a 23 year old sees it as concern trolling. I've lived over 23 years in pain, daily. I don't recall a day I wasn't in pain. I hate to be dismissive of their age but it's immature.
People do not have to contribute more than feedback. Opening up and engaging honestly, in good faith knowing that you will potentially receive blowback for your condition or issues is enough. Having others advocate for you is fine.
I'm sorry. I just cannot fight the powers that be alone. I can't topple Liz Kendall's goals in government without the combined effort of charities, platforms and others fighting; whether they are disabled or not.
My other post ran into char limit, but this person requires some maturity and introspection.
They absolutely do possess an amount of hatred and bile that is harmful to the people they want to protect; most of which comes from ignorance.