‘All animals are equal, but [deaf] animals are more equal than others’

By David McElroy · June 20, 2011

I’m sympathetic to conditions of people who were born with disabilities or somehow become disabled during their lives, but I lose sympathy for those people when they try to use political power to force the rest of society to do what they want.

Unfortunately, more and more militant advocacy groups for disabled people are using the state to compel companies to do what they want. They’re getting away with it because most of the people who think it’s ridiculous have been shamed into being quiet — for fear of being criticized for lack of compassion.

Deaf activists filed a lawsuit against Netflix last week claiming that the movie rental company is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act because it doesn’t yet offer closed captioning for most of its movies. Netflix says it wants to offer more movies with closed captioning, but that there are technical issues standing in the way. The National Association for the Deaf says that’s not good enough.

What I’d like to know is why deaf people have the moral right to demand that state power be used to force companies to make or modify movies to suit their disability. If they want to make the case — to Netflix or movie studios or anyone else — that they’re an audience that’s big enough to be profitably served by such movies, I’m totally sympathetic to that. The additional revenue Netflix gets from serving deaf people might be enough to make up for the cost of modifying the movies. I don’t know. The problem is that that issue isn’t even on the table. The only issue in today’s framing of the matter is whether companies are doing what disability advocates demand — because they’ve been able to get a law saying that companies must do so.

Another problem with this particular group is that they’re terribly contradictory. I happen to know a bit about deaf culture, and what I know about the culture is that there’s some hypocrisy here, too. The people in this culture have developed the idea that being deaf isn’t a disability, but simply a different “human experience.” (Read more than you really want to know about “Deaf culture” here.)

Many deaf people even try to convince others not to use hearing aids or have procedures that would allow some people to hear better, because doing that is admitting that it’s a handicap to be deaf. To pretend that it’s not a handicap — excuse me, “disability” — to be deaf is to deny reality that’s obvious to everyone. We’re just supposed to pretend not to notice.

So many in the deaf community want to have it both ways. They want to pretend that being deaf isn’t a disability and that hearing isn’t to be desired, yet they also want the vast majority of the world to rearrange itself to suit their needs. I don’t have any problem with them having such a contradictory attitude. (I probably have my own internal contradictions that I’m overlooking.) I don’t even have a problem if they ask companies to serve their preferences. But I do have a problem with them demanding that the state use force or threat of force to compel companies to obey their preferences.

I wish nobody were born deaf or became deaf. And since some people are deaf, I wish everything could be arranged in such a way that their needs could be met. But it’s morally illegitimate to use force to compel people and companies to do things they don’t want to do.

There are a lot of things about products and services offered by companies that don’t suit my preferences. I either don’t buy those products and services or else understand that my preference isn’t widespread enough to make it profitable for someone to provide what I want. We need to quit letting “disabilities activists” use shame and guilt on us to to get the majority to go along with demands that the world be reshaped to meet their needs.

We really need to get rid of the state, but scaling it way back would help — and getting rid of the ADA would be a good first step.

Share on Social Networks

I’m seeing a lot of simplistic and dishonest explanations right now for the current rioting in France. Those on the populist far right claim it’s all about Muslim immigrants to France disrupting the culture. Their message is that this sort of thing is going to happen in the U.S. unless “we defend the border.” On the far left, socialists and their fellow travelers claim the riots are all about wealthy people in France not paying enough taxes, resulting in cuts to government services. The truth is far more complicated, but it’s rooted in the decline of population growth in Europe. There simply aren’t enough young workers paying into the tax system anymore, so cuts in social services were inevitable. There is genuine cultural tension as more and more people immigrate from other countries, but government cuts to education and other services are even more important to what’s happening. The situation is complicated, so don’t let dishonest people with U.S. political agendas tell you that it happens to support whatever they were already promoting for partisan reasons.

Here’s another reason to appreciate the cats in your life: New research involving 93 countries found that places with more cats per person also tended to have happier people. The researchers say the finding fits with previous evidence that living with pets can reduce loneliness and stress while providing companionship, emotional attachment and social support. The study doesn’t prove that cats cause greater happiness, but it certainly adds to the evidence that sharing your home — and your life — with a cat might be good for you.

The company that owns Facebook and Instagram is heavily promoting its new AI-based software assistant called Muse, but people who are using it as it was designed are incredibly foolish. An early adopter of the software discovered that a few days ago when he advertised an item for sale on Facebook Marketplace — and he inadvertently gave Muse full authority to act on his behalf. The software agreed to a lowball offer made by another Facebook user and then gave that man the home address of the man for whom he was an agent. The software told the buyer that the seller was home and waiting for him. When the buyer showed up and waited angrily, the would-be buyer left an angry review for the man. And this angry man had the seller’s home address. It was only well after that that the software reported what it had done and admitted it had made a mistake. I won’t be putting that much power into the hands of any software. I think anyone who agrees to such terms is a fool. And the software’s user agreement says you’re responsible for purchases the software makes in your name. Nope.

Meet my new girlfriend. Her name is Meg. And she’s my little sweetheart. A couple of months ago, a neighbor across the street told me about a new stray in the neighborhood that she and I were both soon feeding. The cat had been very skittish about contact and she had a lot of scabs and parasites in her fur, but a trip to the vet last week revealed that she was otherwise in good health. The vet estimates her to be 1 to 2 years old. I named her for Meg Murry, the 13-year-old protagonist of Madeleine L’Engle’s wonderful book, “A Wrinkle in Time.” (Please read the book. Don’t watch the horrible movie.) Since we lost Lucy almost a year ago, it seems appropriate that we finally have a new little girl to join the household. She’s already captured my heart, but Alex, Oliver and Sam aren’t there quite yet.

There’s nothing socially acceptable that’s as dangerous as drinking alcohol. Most people grow up being told to “drink responsibly” — and all of us see people abusing this drug in one way or another — but the truth is that drinking alcohol is always a terrible risk. The alcohol in these drinks is toxic and the human liver has to work hard to filter the toxins out. What most people don’t realize is that alcohol is classified as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organization — because of the well-established connection between imbibing and various cancers. Many people have taken refuge behind the idea that light or moderate drinking might be safe, but a new study shows that drinking even one drink a day increases the risks of 10 types of cancer. When I was a teen-ager, I looked around and saw the negative effects that this behavior had on a lot of people and decided not to start drinking, so I’ve never even tried this poison. The evidence keeps piling up that I was lucky to have come to that conclusion early.

Related Posts