Currently waiting for people to realise that yes, the autistic teens, kids, adults and elders who are always swarmed by aids, cannot speak, lash out, have limited speech, act “dumb”, run away into dangerous places (eg. Roads, pools ect.) when overwhelmed, are similar to the autistic stereotype or in general don’t act in a “civilised manner”
Have access to the internet
They are on tumblr
We are on tumblr
And we don’t appreciate being your punching bag, being excluded from conversations about accessibility, or used as a tool by high functioning autistics who want to say “oh look at me I’m not like the autistics who bite people or make weird sounds in public or need support, I’m just unique and have fun interests.”
We are real people and we are smarter then you think.
hate “ smarter than think ” because not all people smart and still sometimes is online like this , and , smart ( even “ smarter than think ” ) is not reason should respect , that still cut people off . but . yes .
some people with autism and intellectual disability together is online .
some people with autism that elope and get in danger is online .
some people with autism that hit bite scream is online .
not all is - sometimes because people will not allow , sometimes because disabilities make too hard . but some do really do things and talk online .
If you want to attend a pride event, ask about their accessibility plans and policies.
Ask about their covid policies. Ask if they are accessible to mobility aid users. Ask if they will have strobe lights, if there will be bathrooms, if there is water. Make the event planners consider who they may have left out, even if the person being left out isn’t you. Have your friends ask as well. Help create a demand. Help get conversations started. Help people see where things could be more accessible.
Because when we, the disabled, ask these questions? We’re much more likely to get ignored, and much less likely to be heard when we raise hell.
So help us raise hell when we need it. Demand to know why your local Pride event isn’t requiring masks, or is charging for water, or doesn’t have wheelchair ramps, or whatever other accessibility issue you catch.
Stop leaving us behind. We need your fucking help.
Some other things you could ask about:
- Will there be places to sit? (CFS, limited mobility, long Covid sometimes, many heart conditions…)
- Will the event be kept smokefree and vaporfree? (Asthma, allergies, pregnancy, ppl trying to quit…)
- How loud will it be? (Autism, sensory issues, PTSD…)
- How close is the nearest restroom? And how many are there? For big events, the lines can be long if there’s only one or two! (Crohn’s, overactive bladder…)
These are some things that I notice get overlooked a lot when accessibility planning - but definitely not a complete list!
Today’s court ruling weakening discrimination protections for LGBTQ people stands out as extraordinarily strange to me for the simple fact that there was no case. The web designer in question never received a request to create a website for a gay wedding, but instead argued that a hypothetical situation in which she did would violate her rights. I’ve never really heard of anything like this before— how does she even have standing to sue? Can @radiofreederry or someone with more knowledge of legalese than me elaborate on this?
In this latest case, there is no website and no wedding—just an argument from an anti-LGBTQ group in search of the court’s favor…
No person has hired Smith to create a wedding website. In fact, Smith has never designed a wedding website, according to her petition to the court. As such, there is no client Smith has told she is rejecting due to her stated religious beliefs that marriage is only allowed between one man and one woman. In the absence of all that, ADF has, instead, fashioned Smith as the victim of an injury that has never occurred.
So who has hypothetically victimized Smith? A Colorado anti-discrimination law, which, since 2008, has included protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ADF claims Smith’s desire “to bring glory to God by creating unique expression that shares her religious beliefs of creating wedding websites” is thwarted by this law “because she only wants to make websites that comport with her values that same-sex marriage is illegitimate.” Were Smith to get into the wedding website business, the anti-discrimination law “would force me to say things about marriage I disagree with,” Smith wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Times, when her case was argued at the Supreme Court last December…
Can the court rule on thought experiments?
The “Case and Controversy” clause of the Constitution requires that, for a suit to proceed in court, there must be an actual controversy for which the court can rule.
Because SCOTUS is made up of unelected, unaccountable ideologues, however, they do whatever they want with impunity because neither Congress nor the President have any power over them.
SCOTUS said they ruled on this case “to clarify the [nonexistent web designer’s] rights.”
