People with learning disabilities face significant levels of violence and discrimination.
People with short sightedness, not so much.
No one kills a person who is short sighted just because they are short sighted, but this routinely happens to people with learning disability. Not just random fuckheads in public, but doctors will put people with LD under DNR orders without the knowledge or permission of the person or their relatives just because that person has LD and the doctor can't imagine any quality of life.
Absolutely. There are jobs that discriminate against people with eyesight disabilities (some aircraft pilot jobs, for
example) and there are many products that don't account for people wearing glasses.
People with glasses are widely stereotyped as nerds or geeks and often experience bullying.
People wearing glasses were also reportedly targeted in mass killings by the Khmer Rouge due to that same stereotype.
Physical ability and job qualifications are a central issue in the debate about discrimination in hiring. It's not just limited to disabilities, since the same debate has repeatedly taken place around the issue of whether women are physically qualified for certain jobs, as can be seen in the current debate over whether women are physically qualified for special operations roles in the US military.
Would you consider it discrimination if, for example, consumers are more likely to be influenced by a white athlete spokesman than a black one? And so, the white ones gets paid more?
<irony>
Because wearing glasses makes me feel insecure.
</irony>
Yes, a person with disabilities can be ridiculed and feel like crap. A fat one can too. Also one with glasses, long hair, or long nose (or very short, let's include them too, it's the PC thing to do).
Where do you draw the "disadvantage" line?
As much as you are being offended when people are using a series of letters that forms certain words, so do I when people act like irresponsible children putting blame on random words.
It's not about ridicule. It's not about offence. Why do people always make this same point about offence?
"My freedom of speech allows me to say what I like; FUCK YOU if you want to use your freedom of speech to tell me how much harm my words cause"
People with LD have been subjected to genocidal actions; they've been forcibly sterilised (without their (or their family's) knowledge or permission; they've been used as the subjects of harmful medical experimentation (again, without knowledge or permission); they often find themselves under DNR (without knowledge or permission); they face levels of bullying higher than other other group; they face levels of discrimination higher than any other group; this bullying and discrimination is bad enough when it comes from people in society, but it's often coming from care professionals; they are deliberately excluded from most of society who know nothing about LD.
> researchers found that participants showed less tolerance toward people who were referred to as "the mentally ill" when compared to those referred to as "people with mental illness."
> For example, participants were more likely to agree with the statement "the mentally ill should be isolated from the community" than the almost identical statement "people with mental illnesses should be isolated from the community."
> These results were found among [...] and even professional counselors who took part in the study.
> "My freedom of speech allows me to say what I like; FUCK YOU if you want to use your freedom of speech to tell me how much harm my words cause"
But they can say FUCK YOU to people who say things they don't like because that's freedom of speech too. Then those people can say FUCK YOU back and have a whole steaming flame war. It's all speech. It may not be productive, and you may not want to participate in it, but there is no law preventing anybody from doing it.
It's only when somebody passes a law against it that it becomes an affront to free speech.
