Remove ads

A Hero's First Step (MHA)

Reader mode
The thing is, Quirks are additive. They geneally don't take anything away, only add new things. It's more like taking someone with one arm and regrowing the other one.

Sure, they got along just fine with their old prosthetic, but is it really something to complain about if there's a new limb growth treatment?
 
Lunaryon said:
As much as I agree with your statements about autism here, I do feel that I need to argue that being Autistic is different from being quirkless, and that Pittauro's comparison to being blind is a lot closer to what being Quirkless would be like.

Quirks are, with a handful of exceptions, a physical attribute and not an issue of the mind. So comparing the two isn't the most accurate.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

yep, that's basically what I mean. We could have quite the long talk about what mental differences count as disabilities that should be cured, and what are merely a "being different, not worse", but that's a completely different topic, and a much less clear-cut one I think. Even more complicated when you have cases of people who are "different", and are fine with it/wouldn't wish to be normal.

On the other hand I think most of us would agree that if a blind or deaf person decided to refuse a cure for their condition, while that might be their right it's also a very stupid decision. IT reminds me of a couple of House episodes, where a kid refuses a cure for deafness, and another refuses a cure for dwarfism.

And I suppose there was another in which a woman decided she'd rather be thin than healthy (weird condition, she had wait lots of carbs to stay healthy, which means being overweight was actually good for her)

There could be an interesting arguments about those quirks that affect the mind, like Himiko Toga... but even then, it's obvious that the problem there is more about how her parents treated her than the quirk itself. For all we know if she had just been allowed to, say, feed on animal blood, or maybe some donated blood from a hospital, she wouldn't have had these problems.

She needed a patient teacher/therapist to explain to her why people find her fascination with blood disturbing, because it implies she'd like to hurt people. there were certainly better approaches that what she had forced on her.

JoeHalo said:
ANYWAY! I really hate when humans start looking at disabilities or anything 'different' in other people and say "We need a cure for that."

It really grinds my gears! It wasn't pleasant when the the X-Men had to deal with this! Everybody remembers the movie right? When a government official found a way to permanently take away powers with a serum?

Imagine that but MHA for the quirkless population! I wouldn't be surprised if the MLA started convincing/kidnapping people to "cure them of this disease".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
X-men is all about the "mundane" people being afraid of people who are different/have abilities they don't.

I'd argue that looking at most disabilities, the "we need a cure for that" is actually a pretty normal and sensible reaction.

Now, going from that to "we need to force a cure on the unwilling" is a completely different topic, especially when we're talking about MENTAL disabilities.
 
Razzocnor said:
The thing is, Quirks are additive. They geneally don't take anything away, only add new things. It's more like taking someone with one arm and regrowing the other one.

Sure, they got along just fine with their old prosthetic, but is it really something to complain about if there's a new limb growth treatment?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not even regrowing an arm.
It's taking bunch of randomly selected people, giving some people a 3rd arm, and others a 6th toe in one foot.
And for some reason society decides that people with 3 arms and 6 toes are now the norm, and anyone who has 2 arms and 5 toes are somehow lesser.

If everyone had a 3rd arm, i could understand the logic behind the argument.
It would be wrong, as support students show, technology is more than capable of keepin up with any but the most powerful quirks.
But at least there would be some logic behind it.
 
Frankly, I think people overthink it.
It seems to boil down to people in-universe thinking "superpowers are awesome and people not having them are lame", not anything involving disabilities or handicaps.
 
Valmond said:
It's not even regrowing an arm.
It's taking bunch of randomly selected people, giving some people a 3rd arm, and others a 6th toe in one foot.
And for some reason society decides that people with 3 arms and 6 toes are now the norm, and anyone who has 2 arms and 5 toes are somehow lesser.

If everyone had a 3rd arm, i could understand the logic behind the argument.
It would be wrong, as support students show, technology is more than capable of keepin up with any but the most powerful quirks.
But at least there would be some logic behind it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

that's probably the thing I find the most annoying in MHA.

Sure, I get thinking that people with cool quirks are "better". they have something other don't, fair enough.

but why are "lame quirks that are basically useless" so much of an upgrade over "no quirk at all"?

ESPECIALLY when quirk use is heavily regulated outside of the hero profession!

Ternasta said:
Frankly, I think people overthink it.
It seems to boil down to people in-universe thinking "superpowers are awesome and people not having them are lame", not anything involving disabilities or handicaps.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Todoroki Shoto has a superpower.

Bakugo has a superpower.

long-fingers guy has AT BEST a party trick.
 
There is also the fact that a lot of you are trying to apply logic to this discrimination of why an outgroup is inferior to an ingroup. A lot of these things are inherently illogical, but still happen regardless. There are dozens of reasons why it might happen, and the vast majority of them don't really manage to stand up to any scrutiny but persist anyways.

For some people it is a means of having control over something in their life, or a method of reassuring them that things could not be that bad, since there is an outgroup that are 'worse'. For others it could be a method of making themselves superior to another group. For people with invisible quirks, that still makes them part of the majority, and not part of a minority that is seen as being inherently lesser.

It isn't logical, but what can Izuku actually do about it?
 
infinityDivided said:
Well, this could get ugly. Out of all the ways to handle Quirkless discrimination, treating injecting the Quirkless with a dangerous drug to give/force a Quirk on them as a potential solution is probably one of the nastiest.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Canonically, the quirkless are completely immune to ideo trigger and all its effects (since everything it does is actually just messing with quirks), so it's actually not a dangerous drug to the legitimately quirkless. It is potentially dangerous to those who actually have quirks, but that's a risk a lot of people will be willing to take and I very much agree that doing so in a safe place with precautions is much preferable to doing it without such precautions (because people will do that if there's no safe way, no question). Similar to several real world issues, making it illegal (or leaving it illegal in this case) will not stop people from doing it, just mean they do it less safely.

I also doubt the government is gonna force people to take it, largely because most people will take it immediately when given the option and it is in no way worth it to the government to put time, effort, and money into finding and forcing the people who don't want to. Giving it out has some benefits to the government (largely public relations related), forcing it on people has basically none and would cost a lot of resources. It's not impossible for the government to do something so stupid, but I find it unlikely in this specific case.

And, for the record, as others have said I don't think comparing quirklessness to something like autism is a good comparison, given that most quirks are purely physical. There's still an argument that some people don't want to stop being, say, deaf and that's a better comparison...but that moral issue is really solved by just not forcing people to take it. I have no moral objection to a cure for deafness even though I absolutely have one to forcing people to take it, just for comparison.
 
Pittauro said:
yep, that's basically what I mean. We could have quite the long talk about what mental differences count as disabilities that should be cured, and what are merely a "being different, not worse", but that's a completely different topic, and a much less clear-cut one I think. Even more complicated when you have cases of people who are "different", and are fine with it/wouldn't wish to be normal.

On the other hand I think most of us would agree that if a blind or deaf person decided to refuse a cure for their condition, while that might be their right it's also a very stupid decision. IT reminds me of a couple of House episodes, where a kid refuses a cure for deafness, and another refuses a cure for dwarfism.

And I suppose there was another in which a woman decided she'd rather be thin than healthy (weird condition, she had wait lots of carbs to stay healthy, which means being overweight was actually good for her)

There could be an interesting arguments about those quirks that affect the mind, like Himiko Toga... but even then, it's obvious that the problem there is more about how her parents treated her than the quirk itself. For all we know if she had just been allowed to, say, feed on animal blood, or maybe some donated blood from a hospital, she wouldn't have had these problems.

She needed a patient teacher/therapist to explain to her why people find her fascination with blood disturbing, because it implies she'd like to hurt people. there were certainly better approaches that what she had forced on her.


X-men is all about the "mundane" people being afraid of people who are different/have abilities they don't.

I'd argue that looking at most disabilities, the "we need a cure for that" is actually a pretty normal and sensible reaction.

Now, going from that to "we need to force a cure on the unwilling" is a completely different topic, especially when we're talking about MENTAL disabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thinking that refusing a cure for blindness or deafness is stupid is displaying a lot of ignorance on the blind/Deaf communities, historical contexts, and what cure actually entails for those people. Given your previous comment that brushed on autism I highly recommend learning more about disabilities before you revisit these kinds of conversations.
 
Last edited:
Hyacinthium said:
Thinking that refusing a cure for blindness or deafness is stupid is displaying a lot of ignorance on the blind/dead communities, historical contexts, and what cure actually entails for those people. Given your previous comment that brushed on autism I highly recommend learning more about disabilities before you revisit these kinds of conversations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
when I'm talking of a cure, I'm presuming the cure actually works. which implies that, at the end of it all, they'd have normal levels of hearing.

If the cure only works partially, or has heavy side effects, that's a completely different argument and it can be examined on a case by case scenario.

And yes. I think that someone that willingly decide to stay deaf (assuming a cure is possible and "good enough") is making a stupid decision. I can respect their decision, but I still think it's wrong, and that's completely my right as long as I don't impose my opinion on them.

The fact people with disabilities like blindess are forming communities doesn't mean that being blind is now suddenly an improvement, or something to be proud of. It's just something they learned to live with, and they found support in other people with similar problems, supporting each other. Noble and praiseworthy, but it doesn't make the underlying condition, blindness, something positive.

Still, we're here to talk about MHA, and more specifically this quest's setting. And my opinion here is that basically now that Ideo Trigger has been shown to work on SOME apparently quirkless people, the obvious follow up is for the government to authorize "safe" doses in "safe" environments to people who want/hope for a quirk but are classified as quirkless. Not force it, obviously, but just make it an option. Simple as that.
 
Lunaryon said:
There is also the fact that a lot of you are trying to apply logic to this discrimination of why an outgroup is inferior to an ingroup. A lot of these things are inherently illogical, but still happen regardless. There are dozens of reasons why it might happen, and the vast majority of them don't really manage to stand up to any scrutiny but persist anyways.

For some people it is a means of having control over something in their life, or a method of reassuring them that things could not be that bad, since there is an outgroup that are 'worse'. For others it could be a method of making themselves superior to another group. For people with invisible quirks, that still makes them part of the majority, and not part of a minority that is seen as being inherently lesser.

It isn't logical, but what can Izuku actually do about it?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

He could cry, really loudly, and not stop, until they do.
 
Pittauro said:
when I'm talking of a cure, I'm presuming the cure actually works. which implies that, at the end of it all, they'd have normal levels of hearing.

If the cure only works partially, or has heavy side effects, that's a completely different argument and it can be examined on a case by case scenario.

And yes. I think that someone that willingly decide to stay deaf (assuming a cure is possible and "good enough") is making a stupid decision. I can respect their decision, but I still think it's wrong, and that's completely my right as long as I don't impose my opinion on them.

The fact people with disabilities like blindess are forming communities doesn't mean that being blind is now suddenly an improvement, or something to be proud of. It's just something they learned to live with, and they found support in other people with similar problems, supporting each other. Noble and praiseworthy, but it doesn't make the underlying condition, blindness, something positive.

Still, we're here to talk about MHA, and more specifically this quest's setting. And my opinion here is that basically now that Ideo Trigger has been shown to work on SOME apparently quirkless people, the obvious follow up is for the government to authorize "safe" doses in "safe" environments to people who want/hope for a quirk but are classified as quirkless. Not force it, obviously, but just make it an option. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There's something to be said for the argument that the concept of disability is a societal construct. In the past, sign language was much more prevalent in some areas, to the point that the deaf and hard of hearing were easily able to communicate with others. That didn't make them able to hear, but it sure did remove many of the barriers preventing them from participating normally in society. And that's setting aside the fact that normal is itself a construct and I don't believe there's ever been a truly normal human being. People are different. Sometimes those differences are significant enough to be classified as something, and sometimes they aren't. And even significant divergences can be ignored or overlooked if the community around them is supportive. Remember that most of the symptoms that get people diagnosed as being on the Autistic spectrum are things that Autistic people do when scared, upset, or traumatized.

Given how badly MHA's hero culture handles people with potentially dangerous quirks, they're probably even worse about dealing with the medical facts of being quirkless. I wouldn't be surprised if medical malpractice, myths, or just a general lack of understanding has led to most people not knowing what being quirkless actually means. Maybe they think quirkless people will die if you breathe on them wrong. Now I wonder how often Izuku has heard people say they'd rather be dead than quirkless. Even people trying to look out for him may just have been closing doors and denying him opportunities because they think it's better for him.

Did he lack the drive to start training to become a hero before getting a quirk (this quest) or being told he could have a quirk (canon), I wonder? Or did his early attempts get doors slammed in his face, resulting in a kind of learned helplessness? There's a lot of potential to read MHA as a disability narrative.

TLDR, most of the problems disabled people and quirkless people face come from the fact that we live in a society.
 
Last edited:
Pittauro said:
On the other hand I think most of us would agree that if a blind or deaf person decided to refuse a cure for their condition, while that might be their right it's also a very stupid decision.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As a hearing person, I am rather unqualified to step into this conversation, and know nothing about blindness. But deaf culture is complicated, and even a perfectly working side effect free "cure" for deafness…isn't something people would be stupid for not wanting. In all honesty, the main advantage I perceive in being hearing in my life is societal. I doubt that hearing is something that matters to me in the grand scale, besides that I'm used to it.
In short, I think that you might want to research these issues if you plan on making statements about them.

I don't mean to insult you or say that you don't care, I'm sure you do. It's just that this is in fact a complicated topic, and that kind of unilateral statement is one that someone affected by these issues could find very offensive.
 
SillyLittleCoffe said:
There's something to be said for the argument that the concept of disability is a societal construct. In the past, sign language was much more prevalent in some areas, to the point that the deaf and hard of hearing were easily able to communicate with others. That didn't make them able to hear, but it sure did remove many of the barriers preventing them from participating normally in society. And that's setting aside the fact that normal is itself a construct and I don't believe there's ever been a truly normal human being. People are different. Sometimes those differences are significant enough to be classified as something, and sometimes they aren't. And even significant divergences can be ignored or overlooked if the community around them is supportive. Remember that most of the symptoms that get people diagnosed as being on the Autistic spectrum are things that Autistic people do when scared, upset, or traumatized.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
interesting point, and I mostly agree.

Though, again, while societal norms/standards of normalcy can make a given disability (or really any specific condition, not only medical) harder to live with, that doesn't mean the condition itself was not harmful to begin with.

Going back to your example about deaf people, prevalence of sign languages can certainly reduce the burden of the disability... but then you're creating a heavier burden on everyone else. It's not exactly feasible to have everyone learn sign language to help the 1 in a 1000 (no idea what the real numbers are) that suffer from that problem.

Then gain, nowadays we have different and easier solutions. My grandma is 100 years old, and her hearing is... bad. So what I do when I talk to her is simply using a cellphone app (made to deal with deaf people) that simply converts to writing what I say, and then I show her the text.

For a blind person, ignoring braille texts, there's apps to read the texts for you.


In regards to "normal" as a construct I completely agree. I can't really comment on the part about symptoms of autism mostly depending on current emotional status because I'll readily admit I just don't know that much about it.


SillyLittleCoffe said:
Given how badly MHA's hero culture handles people with potentially dangerous quirks, they're probably even worse about dealing with the medical facts of being quirkless. I wouldn't be surprised if medical malpractice, myths, or just a general lack of understanding has led to most people not knowing what being quirkless actually means. Maybe they think quirkless people will die if you breathe on them wrong. Now I wonder how often Izuku has heard people say they'd rather be dead than quirkless. Even people trying to look out for him may just have been closing doors and denying him opportunities because they think it's better for him.

Did he lack the drive to start training to become a hero before getting a quirk (this quest) or being told he could have a quirk (canon), I wonder? Or did his early attempts get doors slammed in his face, resulting in a kind of learned helplessness? There's a lot of potential to read MHA as a disability narrative.

TLDR, most of the problems disabled people and quirkless people face come from the fact that we live in a society.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
in regards to the "die if you breath on them wrong"... I mean, maybe it could even be true, relatively speaking. Aizawa is pretty impressive physically speaking for someone that has no explicit power beyond quirk suppression, so I've seen some fanfics and quests talk about a "Charles atlas quirk" that basically allows people to train to superhuman levels even without a strenght-type quirk, if more slowly.

I don't really remember if it's usually assumed to apply to quirkless or not. It would make some sense if it didn't. It makes no real different in your day to day life, as most people don't exactly train much, but in a hero career it would make all the difference if that was the difference between a weak quirk and no quirk at all.

but then again, here I'm talking about fanon.

Aria the Mage said:
As a hearing person, I am rather unqualified to step into this conversation, and know nothing about blindness. But deaf culture is complicated, and even a perfectly working side effect free "cure" for deafness…isn't something people would be stupid for not wanting. In all honesty, the main advantage I perceive in being hearing in my life is societal. I doubt that hearing is something that matters to me in the grand scale, besides that I'm used to it.
In short, I think that you might want to research these issues if you plan on making statements about them.

I don't mean to insult you or say that you don't care, I'm sure you do. It's just that this is in fact a complicated topic, and that kind of unilateral statement is one that someone affected by these issues could find very offensive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think there's plenty of advantages from hearing vs not hearing. I mean, for a random two, "music" and "being able to hear if a car is coming fast from around the corner while you're crossing the road".

saying that you don't find hearing that useful is like saying that you wouldn't mind becoming deaf that much, which I don't think is true.

In my opinion, they'd be making a "stupid" choice, which is not quite the same as saying they're stupid. Then again, their life is not my life, I have no right making their decision for them, and so while I have my opinion and am not really afraid to express it, I'd basically stop there.

In other words, I don't think it's wrong of me to say what I think, even if I don't fully know their situation and context.

it WOULD be wrong on me to impose my opinion on them by pretending they have to make the choice I think is best.

I can think of only a reason to refuse a cure (assuming no side-effects that wouldn't be worth the payoff): if they fear being excluded from their social circle because they no longer "share" their common element (deafness).

I can understand that, even if I don't agree with it.

Now, in all of this I'm talking from afar, thinking of the "general case", and I already admitted I don't know the details of the social situations of people affected by these problems. I have an opinion, I express it, and then I leave it at that, as it's not my place to do much more than that.

I don't think I necessarily need to be 100% informed of something to have an opinion of something. Not unless I have a work or a responsibility that leads me to make choices about that, at least. A Lawmaker should know about such things before writing laws that might have unexpected effects and consequences, for example.

I don't feel insulted, and I think you're approaching the topic very politely, even as you obviously disagree with my opinion, so thank you for that. That said, I don't think I'm wrong in what I said. To most people, refusing a cure for a disability without a VERY good reason would be the wrong decision. I don't know the details, but I don't think it's wrong to believe that.

if I ever had to deal with a person in that situation, refusing a treatment like that, I'd obviously want to hear their reasons before condemning the decision... but it would have to be a really good reason to convince me.
 
DeadmanwalkingXI said:
That's more plausible, but his reading of social cues is still a lot better than most people with ASD and seems to do so instinctually rather than intellectually. Like, he's in denial about being bullied, but he reads other social cues as well as you'd expect a 15 year old boy with a history of abuse to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ehh. He's clearly been in a situation that's consistently not safe for him, and social cues (indicating when to run, how to placate, body language) are important for minimizing danger, so it would also make sense that he'd learn those. It's absolutely possible to learn social skills manually to the point where they feel instinctual, after all.

Social skills are also highly variable between autistic people. I could see it either way, really.

Edit: Unusual pain reactions could be another talley, perhaps.
 
Last edited:
Murloc said:
Ehh. He's clearly been in a situation that's consistently not safe for him, and social cues (indicating when to run, how to placate, body language) are important for minimizing danger, so it would also make sense that he'd learn those. It's absolutely possible to learn social skills manually to the point where they feel instinctual, after all.

Social skills are also highly variable between autistic people. I could see it either way, really.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

True. I can generally pass for allistic, myself, but IME the skills in question tend to feel like intellectual analysis internally even if they don't look like it externally, and I don't get that feeling from Izuku's internal monologues at all. Like, it's certainly possible, but I don't personally see it.
 
Just as a note, I am borderline autistic, have better social skills than Izuku (if barely) while having them be completely instinctive, and empathize with him very hard. I could very easily see him being somewhere on the spectrum.

As my mom once put it, everyone's on the autistic spectrum, just most people are on the other side of the line than the one that makes them "officially" autistic, and that border is mostly arbitrary. A lot of "allistic" people will display autistic symptoms on a mild level if sufficiently stressed in the right way, it's just that the deeper on the spectrum you are, the more "symptoms" you show, the easier it is to get you to show them, and the stronger they are. As an example, if you've ever bounced your leg or tapped your foot in response to stress, you were stimming, which is something heavily associated with autism. It's just only enough to contribute to a diagnosis if you need it significantly more than others to the point of being noticeable and "disruptive."

Just my two cents.

Edit: also, nail biting is also a form of stimming if it's done in response to stress or overstimulation, and given just how common that is as a nervous habit, I am pretty confident that most "allistic" people on the forum have stimmed at least once in their life, and probably a lot more.
 
Last edited:
bengalqueen said:
Just as a note, I am borderline autistic, have better social skills than Izuku (if barely) while having them be completely instinctive, and empathize with him very hard. I could very easily see him being somewhere on the spectrum.

As my mom once put it, everyone's on the autistic spectrum, just most people are on the other side of the line than the one that makes them "officially" autistic, and that border is mostly arbitrary. A lot of "allistic" people will display autistic symptoms on a mild level if sufficiently stressed in the right way, it's just that the deeper on the spectrum you are, the more "symptoms" you show, the easier it is to get you to show them, and the stronger they are. As an example, if you've ever bounced your leg or tapped your foot in response to stress, you were stimming, which is something heavily associated with autism. It's just only enough to contribute to a diagnosis if you need it significantly more than others to the point of being noticeable and "disruptive."

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh Izuku being somewhere along the lines of autistic or ADHD has been something almost every autistic or adhder I know has considered. When we're introduced to him we see child him stimming from excitement, he has fucking 15 notebooks about heroes and quirks, the rambling thing he does rings some bells... He's kind of fixated on that shit. I wouldn't say it's canon, but Izuku being ND is something that a lot of people utilize quite well in their writing because they find his behavior familiar, and duh. We don't have much.

I think it's likely he's got PTSD symptoms from his school life and related quirkless stuff though. Sometimes that can be hard to differentiate from autism or ADHD. Although I do have to say that a lot of 1A is kinda... Look, socializing got way easier when I landed a job where there were other autistic workers and most people weren't super nuerotypical. I still needed accomodations and to disclose stuff, and the new manager is driving those employees away so fuck me ig, and none of my coworkers know sign language if something happens and I go mute but haha.

but then I'm creating a heavier burden on everyone else on everyone else by being disabled am I right?
 
Last edited:
Pittauro said:
interesting point, and I mostly agree.

Though, again, while societal norms/standards of normalcy can make a given disability (or really any specific condition, not only medical) harder to live with, that doesn't mean the condition itself was not harmful to begin with.

Going back to your example about deaf people, prevalence of sign languages can certainly reduce the burden of the disability... but then you're creating a heavier burden on everyone else. It's not exactly feasible to have everyone learn sign language to help the 1 in a 1000 (no idea what the real numbers are) that suffer from that problem.

Then gain, nowadays we have different and easier solutions. My grandma is 100 years old, and her hearing is... bad. So what I do when I talk to her is simply using a cellphone app (made to deal with deaf people) that simply converts to writing what I say, and then I show her the text.

For a blind person, ignoring braille texts, there's apps to read the texts for you.


In regards to "normal" as a construct I completely agree. I can't really comment on the part about symptoms of autism mostly depending on current emotional status because I'll readily admit I just don't know that much about it.



in regards to the "die if you breath on them wrong"... I mean, maybe it could even be true, relatively speaking. Aizawa is pretty impressive physically speaking for someone that has no explicit power beyond quirk suppression, so I've seen some fanfics and quests talk about a "Charles atlas quirk" that basically allows people to train to superhuman levels even without a strenght-type quirk, if more slowly.

I don't really remember if it's usually assumed to apply to quirkless or not. It would make some sense if it didn't. It makes no real different in your day to day life, as most people don't exactly train much, but in a hero career it would make all the difference if that was the difference between a weak quirk and no quirk at all.

but then again, here I'm talking about fanon.



I think there's plenty of advantages from hearing vs not hearing. I mean, for a random two, "music" and "being able to hear if a car is coming fast from around the corner while you're crossing the road".

saying that you don't find hearing that useful is like saying that you wouldn't mind becoming deaf that much, which I don't think is true.

In my opinion, they'd be making a "stupid" choice, which is not quite the same as saying they're stupid. Then again, their life is not my life, I have no right making their decision for them, and so while I have my opinion and am not really afraid to express it, I'd basically stop there.

In other words, I don't think it's wrong of me to say what I think, even if I don't fully know their situation and context.

it WOULD be wrong on me to impose my opinion on them by pretending they have to make the choice I think is best.

I can think of only a reason to refuse a cure (assuming no side-effects that wouldn't be worth the payoff): if they fear being excluded from their social circle because they no longer "share" their common element (deafness).

I can understand that, even if I don't agree with it.

Now, in all of this I'm talking from afar, thinking of the "general case", and I already admitted I don't know the details of the social situations of people affected by these problems. I have an opinion, I express it, and then I leave it at that, as it's not my place to do much more than that.

I don't think I necessarily need to be 100% informed of something to have an opinion of something. Not unless I have a work or a responsibility that leads me to make choices about that, at least. A Lawmaker should know about such things before writing laws that might have unexpected effects and consequences, for example.

I don't feel insulted, and I think you're approaching the topic very politely, even as you obviously disagree with my opinion, so thank you for that. That said, I don't think I'm wrong in what I said. To most people, refusing a cure for a disability without a VERY good reason would be the wrong decision. I don't know the details, but I don't think it's wrong to believe that.

if I ever had to deal with a person in that situation, refusing a treatment like that, I'd obviously want to hear their reasons before condemning the decision... but it would have to be a really good reason to convince me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Look, let's go back to when you were being less hypothetical, or actually we don't need to do that because your underlying attitude is clearly not hypothetical. Considering you've said you think eugenics just gets a bad rap I'm not even going to sugar coat things so that you think I'm polite. You've spent multiple pages regurgitating harmful prejudices, discriminatory attitudes, and disparaging people who form tight communities away from hearing people precisely because of people like you. In Deaf majority communities deaf people usually don't feel disabled at all. Their schools and towns and interactions don't have need for sounds. They naturally form sign languages even when discouraged and punished in oralist schools, which force deaf children to learn spoken languages and how to lip read (which doesn't work consistently at all but sure is interesting and ~convenient~ to the hearing). But that's better than why Deaf people have Deaf communities: the historical and not actually 100% gone tendancy for Hearing people to deprive them of any education, ever, attempting to destroy their supports and communities as part of a concentrated effort, and or throwing them into asylums.

Note: From a different perspective, Deaf people can be considered a cultural and linguistic minority group, who use a fully formed language—American Sign Language (ASL)—and are members of a distinct minority culture.

Btw, did you know that 80-90% of Hearing parents of deaf children never bother to learn sign language, or to teach it to their children? Something that can permanently damage the child's ability to learn any form of language later on, and is a sure fit way to hamper their experience and outcome later in life? And refuse to introduce their children to local Deaf Communities, or even acknowledge that their kid is deaf? CIs are, after, a cure that deaf parents abuse their children by denying. And deafness needs to be cured. Even if CIs don't actually make deaf people become hearing, and often cause exhaustion or pain or simply don't make up for previous suffering of language deprivation. Sometimes they don't provide anything usable as hearing at all. Hearing parents still default to CI as a way to magically fix their kid.

Oh and 60% of those children whose parents refuse to acknowledge their deafness by learning and teaching sign language(pssst don't tell anyone that learning any form of sl is extremely beneficial to the human brain, the younger the better) end up incarcerated by age 21, but I'm sure that's just an example of the heavy burden that deaf and hard of hearing people put on the Hearing, the poor inconvenienced waifs who just want to eugenics(such a bad rep) and cure such obvious deficiencies.

Like my dude you don't have an actual opinion on this. You have a collection of bigotry you're pretending to be respectful about. It's as meaningful and you're as entitled to it as much as someone is about thinking that the moon landing is faked. But instead of googling you're just doubling down about your shitty onion that displays exactly why Deaf advocacy is necessary. Among a shit ton of other forms of advocacy. But what do I know. I've only spent the last year doing disability advocacy and education at work near daily for myself and my coworkers.

Why would people want a cure when the obsession with cures is demonstrably horrific, abusive, and damaging directly due to the people who want to fix us and how they can only conceive that in a selfish manner born from existing in a world built and made for them, where anything remotely like accessibility or difference is an unjust attack on their lives? I'd rather make a community where people like me are the majority and stay as I am. If we're skipping into hypothetical cures that will likely never exist, after talking about fucking House of all the TV shows, I'm pretty sure there'll be enough of us to go live on another planet because that's some startrek shit.
 
I'll be honest I may need to start communicating more in this quest because I have no idea what I just came back to.
 
Moon said:
I'll be honest I may need to start communicating more in this quest because I have no idea what I just came back to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You are the not the only person who has gotten very confused over this discussion about the nature of Quirklessness. It hasn't gotten to the point of being derailing yet, but I think we are just about reaching the point where everyone's opinions are known.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top