At the risk of receiving the ire of Lemmy, there are some notable exceptions to this. I can’t speak for all disabilities, but for bipolar disorder, there are a LOT of non-pharmecutical things I have done that makes my life so much better. For me, the #1 best thing I can do is exercise. It sucks because that is the most intensive thing to do, but once I started running a 5k a day, and then cooled down a bit due to my poor knees (now I got into rock climbing), I have been listed as “Bipolar-in remission” by my doctors. This isn’t just anecdotal, there is plenty of research on this subject that shows the link between exercise and mental health.
I would also consider “taking my meds” as under the “healthy living my way out of disability”, but just taking them isn’t enough.
I of course will extend the caveat that I am physically abled to do these exercises, and there are bipolar folks who are unable to make this happen, but if I’m offered a tool to help make my life better, I’m going to use it.
Also to extend deeper into the ire, when people with bipolar disorder choose not to take their diagnosis seriously and refuse treatment, not only can it be harmful to those around them, but also to those of us who are trying to shirk the stereotype of “unstable and dangerous manic depressive”. When Kanye was manic and went off on his neo Nazi rants, many people said “well, he’s bipolar so it’s not really his fault”. He wasn’t taking meds, and he was ignoring his health leading into it.
Personally, that exoneration is upsetting because so many of us are putting in the effort to live healthy stable lives and accept responsibility for our actions, even when manic. Being manic is an explanation for terrible behavior, but it isn’t an excuse. When we believe that bipolar people can’t help but be awful, people will hear about my diagnosis and believe that I will be awful and I can’t help it. It’s dehumanizing.
One more note on this post- it seems to lend itself to hopelessness. Of course it was talking about chronic illness as a whole, and of course chronic illness isn’t a monolith, but having the thought of “there’s nothing that can be done” isn’t something I’m willing to accept, at least for myself. To quote Emily Dickinson, Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul and it sings the tune without the words and never stops at all. Every day I hope that tomorrow will be better than today, but I know hope is merely enough. I need to do the work. Sometimes I don’t hear the tune, but it’s always there waiting should I lend an ear.
I think what the post does very well in it’s most core point is address the stigma that abled people have towards the disabled. I’d say the imperative word in the post is “just”. You can’t just healthy living your way out of chronic illness. For some, healthy living has a huge benefit, but for me to get to where I am wasn’t easy, in fact it asks for effort every day, and I know to be in my current mental space takes a lot more effort than it does for others.
From BoJack Horseman: it gets easier. Every day it gets a little easier, But you gotta to do it every day, that’s the hard part. But it does get easier.
TL;DR I live with Bipolar disorder and I have found healthy living has saved my life, and while many can’t do what I do, letting people off the hook for not taking care of themselves with a dangerous illness creates the stereotypes that negatively impacts people who manage their bipolar disorder.
Edit just to cover my basses, when talking about folks that choose not to address their bipolar disorder/ not exclusing manic episodes, I’m addressing those with a diagnosis and have the means to access medications and help and then actively choose not to. I’m more willing to cut some slack for someone who had a bad prescription and are still finding what works for them, or folks who don’t have access to medical care (which is an abomination that medicine isn’t universally accessible).
Posting the second tweet (or whatever bluesky calls it) because the context is important imo:
I agree with all of this.
$0.02: bigots need rigidly defined in/out groups to feel strong and safe, and their awful behavior is self-reinforcing through fear of their peers. More succinctly: everyone in that club knows how they treat “others”, and so fear being one themselves. This also explains why social progress meets so much backlash, as bigots are clinging to their rules like a kind of psychological life-preserver.
My MIL went off the vegan deep end about a year ago. She 100% believes that anything can be cured by going vegan, and non plant-based foods are what causes every issue. Not even exaggerating, she believes that within 8 weeks of going vegan, you’ll be cured of: alzheimers, dementia, diabetes, cancer, hormone issues, autoimmune diseases, permanent disabilities, autism, and basically anything else wrong with you genetic or otherwise.
I have IBD, which is something that often requires surgery. I’ve seen so many people online shaming IBD sufferers for getting parts of their colon removed rather than “just trying keto/vegan/whatever”, as if they wouldn’t have died without the surgery. It infuriates me to no end that they blame the victims of these diseases, like we haven’t all tried god knows how many diets to get the pain to stop.
You can tell her you met someone, me, who has two of the things on your list and has been vegan for 3 years.
It’s sweet that you think facts or reality matter to her, that went out the window a long time ago. We also stopped talking to her a couple months ago, for a lot of reasons
Congrats on that decision, sounds like it’s good for you!
Not even exaggerating, she believes that within 8 weeks of going vegan, you’ll be cured of: alzheimers, dementia, diabetes, cancer, hormone issues, autoimmune diseases, permanent disabilities, autism, and basically anything else wrong with you genetic or otherwise.
As someone with at least two things on your list, this sounds perfectly believable to me, and she’s far from alone - people who buy in to this and similar crap (have you tried yoga? Acupuncture? Reiki? Keto? Fasting? the list never ends) will pop up like slimy slugs after it rains to pester disabled people with their almost missionary, ableist bullshit.
Nah but a whole food plant-based has been scientifically proven to help with all those issues.
All of them? Veganism will cure autism?
Nah. Pesticides and pollution will make it more widespread.
Mmmmmh yes, being super ableist in a post that’s calling our ableism
Yes. Of course. My post above is super ableist. Not just ableist, super ableist. It makes normal ableists look like antiableists. To be honest, it probably transcends ableism. I’d say it belongs in the postableist era.
A bit confused though…Why is it ableist?
Scanned through your link. It doesn’t mention most of them. It also almost immediately lumps vegetarian and low meat in with vegan. Lastly, it spends as much time talking about environmental concerns as health ones.
About all it says on the matter is that a healthy diet helps more than an unhealthy one. Vegans also tend to have a healthier diet. It’s perfectly possible to have a healthy diet, including meat, and gain the same benefits.
You’re in denial as your second paragraph is straight up misinformation as you cannot be just as healthy when you’re continuing to eat meat as processed meat is a class 1 carcinogen and red meat is a class 2a carcinogen.
There is a significant amount of research done on the benefits of the whole foods plant-based diet.
Animal flesh will increase the amount of your cholesterol intake increasing your risk for heart disease as they’re also high in saturated fats.
Certain types of fish contain high amounts of mercury due industrial pollution with predator fish species having the highest amounts.
Not to mention all the possible food contaminantion.
I’m not going to remove what you said but please be more considerate in the future. This conmunity has high scientific standards for medical advice (see rule 3) and an opinion piece in a dodgy medical journal written by a single doctor doesn’t cut it.
Show us a major review or a government guidleline. Otherwise, replace “is” by “I think”.
What you sent has as much quality as a bachelor students opinion piece. And fails to consider correlation may not be causation.
For example vegan people are richer on average (being vegan is expensive). Turns out rich people are thinner on average. So is being rich or being vegan what declines in chances of obsesity?
I agree with your criticism towards the source. “Being vegan is expensive” is quite a generalized statement in need of citation from someone holding up “high scientific standards”, though. I am convinced it is false in its generality. (Convenience and substitute products are expensive, but in no way necessary.)
You’re completely right that I didn’t apply the same standards to that statement. This is because Rule 3 is intended in favour to medical advice (and preventing quackery). So even if I was completely pulling the “being vegan is expensive” out of my ass, it would technically not be rulebreaking as that isn’t medical advice, unlike the persons comment above who insinuates being vegan will help autism and cancer.
But here’s my rationale (which is not peer reviewed lol) for why being vegan is expensive (TLDR personal experience, read the rest if you want details).
I mean unless you’ve got a lot of of time on your hand, which would mean you’re privileged, it’s going to be hard to not risk deficiencies as it is a tough balance to achieve. (I spent two yeats vegan).
And unless you’re willing to splurge a lot on expensive nut milks, B12 is really hard to get enough of.
Then there’s calcium, iron, Omega 3 fatty acids, vitamin D, none of which are necessary to supplement if you’re doing the diet right but you’re going to need to either live somewhere with a very large product selection (like a city) to have varied sources of, or be meticulous in your dieting and tracking, which can mean spending a long long time checking food labels and planning meals.
Most people will end up having to buy a couple of these supplements which are extremely expensive.
None of those points actually back up your statement that it’s misinformation. No matter the diet, imbalances or excesses will be bad for your health.
As for health benefits, do they compare to an “average” diet, or an otherwise healthy one. E.g. a “Mediterranean diet”? It’s also worth noting that a vegan diet, without planning, will lead to deficiencies. Ultimately, our bodies evolved to run on a mostly plant based diet, with a small amount of meat supplementing it. It’s what allowed us to oversize our brains so much. If you choose to alter what you eat, that’s fine. I also agree that most people eat way too much meat. That doesn’t mean going to the other extreme is better.
As for carcinogens, we are constantly dealing with various types. Burnt bread is technically carcinogenic. Our bodies have evolved to deal with them. Too much, and you’ll obviously overload the repair systems and cause issues. The same can be said for a poor/deficient diet however.
Also applies to “I’d rather die than be disabled” in its many forms.
And I just posted this in another comment, but I think it’s relevant here too:
What’s wrong with “I’d rather die than be disabled”? To me it looks a legitimate personal moral stance.
To me it looks a legitimate personal moral stance.
Congratulations, you’re an ableist.
Edit just to give anyone who might actually give a shit a clue: if you replace disabled with any other marginalised group and your point becomes glaringly bigoted, it’s also bigoted when you aim it at disabled people. It’s really not that fucking complicated.
Right-to-die is ableist?
I think we can keep that discussion out of this one. Supporting that argument would be strenuous and pyrrhic.
Since you added an edit later on: no replacement makes that statement bigoted. If my own morale or ideas bring me to my own evaluation - that applies only to me - that life in a certain condition wouldn’t be worth living, there is nothing bigoted (at least, inherently).
I wouldn’t want to live so many lives that people live. Like an exploited worker in a poor country, a female in a very religious society etc. Ultimately this is a personal decision on your own life and body, nobody else should have a saying on what I want to do with my life at this fundamental level.
The problem (which becomes being ableist, or racist, or sexist) is when this perspectives becomes an ideology that affects society. You can easily support a society that - say - grants equal opportunities to men and women and at the same time think that you wouldn’t want to live as a woman.
Can you explain why? Why can’t I choose not to live in case I’d get disabled (in some cases, I would say)?
As long as you are not advocating that disabled people should be killed, and you respect the personal nature of this position, what is the problem?
I just want to offer my two cents as someone who is disabled. I understand you viewpoint, and I don’t think it makes you ableist, but the sentiment definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
1.) You can have that opinion without being ableist, but it’s a pretty insensitive thing to express. I understand you’re probably not going around telling disabled people that, but it can come across as “a disabled life isn’t worth it”, whether you mean it or not.
2.) It’s a blanket sentiment that raises the bar of what you consider to be disabled. Would you really rather die than have autism or ADHD? Or maybe POTS? Or IBD? Disabled is a very broad term that encompasses far more than profound physical disabilities.
Between those two, as someone who is disabled, I’m left wondering whether someone is implying my life isn’t worth living, or that they don’t consider me disabled enough. Again, not trying to come at you or call you ableist, just trying to explain how it could possibly come across poorly.
I see and agree with both points. I definitely keep such choices to a very tight circle (like I gave instructions to my partner and family in what to do should I end up in certain situations - also called biological testament in Italian).
I also mentioned that indeed I would consider certain disabilities a deal breaker for me not to keep living, definitely not all disabilities. I would actually say that there are things that I want to do in life, and if I can’t - for whatever reason - that would be a reason not to live for me. Whether it’s a disability, a material condition, etc. It’s not really relevant - a disability can simply be a proxy not to be able to do something.
For example, I fought tooth and nail to ensure that my grandma would receive the proper care when she had dementia (which is a disabling condition I would say?). I also took care of her directly, and I would do that again a thousand times. However, should I get a similar condition, I let my family know that I would like to be euthanized, I don’t want to live like that.
Finally, this perspective is really really personal, it is bound to my experiences and my idea to the point that it can’t simply apply to anybody else. I would definitely never go to anybody and say “if I were in your shoes I would rather die”, but even if I thought that, this is a meaningless statement for another person. It’s of course extremely rude to say this, so once again, I am saying it for the sake of a theoretical discussion.
Overall for me this is a matter of free will and agency over your own body, it’s in anthithesis with the religious view that considers your body not yours and suffering a noble thing in itself.
I would say there is a HUGE difference between saying:
I‘d rather die than be disabled and I‘d rather die than have to live with some disabilities.
The former is really just saying: any disability makes life not worth living and the latter at least acknowledges that there are only a few disabilities you would deign to be „too much“ for you.
But the general problem with this „stance“ I would say is that we are talking about human lives. If we talk about what we would like to eat its kind of whatever. But in this case you are saying that people with (some) disabilities have lives that you say you don’t think are worth living. People with disabilities have gotten killed for this, because abled-bodied people just say what they think and their opinions are seen as more reliable, natural and important.
So yes, I would also say that the phrase is a clearly ableist position. You can argue that it is „just a personal position“ sure, it’s still ableist though and uses the same framework of eugenicists for example. And of course you can still hold that position. But maybe give it a thought on why that is your opinion.
Have you ever listened or talked to different disabled people on their experiences or is this more a gut feeling? Why are you drawing such a hard line? Is this more a perspective on assisted suicide?
Yeah, I completely disagree.
This for me is a position on my own right to determine my life, including ending it if certain conditions are not met. It is a position that affects and will affect a single person only, the one supporting it.
So in a sense it is something closer to assisted suicide and euthanasia in general. “Any disability would make my life not worth living” is different than saying “any disability makes life not worth living”. It’s a completely subjective issue, that can also change over time, and it’s obvious that there are people who completely disagree and have wonderful meaningful lives worth living while being disabled.
People with disabilities have gotten killed for this
Since this is not what I mean, nor advocate, this is in no way on me. The fact that other people with other perspectives act in a different way is not a reason me for to suppress my opinion. I mean no harm to anybody, I support welfare and public healthcare, I support also accessibility in all the different forms because I believe society should provide all tools and conditions possible to anybody to live their lives in the best possible way.
Also, I personally don’t have such a hard-line, I think for my own personal perspective only certain disabilities would be reasons to determine my life is not worth living anymore, but I can accept that for other people the bar can be in a different place.
I mean okay if I read this in good faith I think you are kind of addressing this weirdly.
You can say something ableist without „meaning to do harm“. It really just is a phrase that has been used in really grotesque fashion in the past and we do live in a context. We might just have a fundamental disagreement on how we think about discourse.
As you have said you could make the same point without using this exact phrase so I firstly don’t believe that your opinion is suppressed on the topic. Secondly I think as able-bodied people sometimes it just is not our right or place to say that language that has hurt marginalised people can be used by us or redeemed for that matter because we just talk about ourselves.
Again yes I think you should be empowered to control your life and the end of it. And there are many ways to say this instead of: Id rather die than be (insert marginalised group).
Maybe as a different minority I can only offer that it just feels icky to me if another group wants to use words that have been used against me because that’s the way they want to express themselves. That’s why I engaged with your question in good faith
Look, if the problem is the expression, I don’t care really for it. English is not my first language, I have no need to say this to anybody really, and I have no problem expressing my thought in another way.
All I care is the semantic and the underlying principle.
So yeah, I won’t stomp my foot to defend my right to express my thought with that sentence (to be honest, not a fan of policing language this way). I will simply defend my right to express the underlying opinion, in whichever way is acceptable.
Removed by mod
Disabled is a social status.
There are more disabilities than pretty much anyone can imagine. A disability can be anything from a foot defect, to partial blindness, to scoliosis.
A disabled life is not necessarily a life of suffering or an unhealthy life, you’re already stereotyping here. Ableism teaches people that disability is full of suffering and nothing else, and that therefore disabled lives are not worth living. This is the rationale the nazis used when genociding the disabled population.
Are you really saying you’d rather die then have a foot malformation, or rather die than being hard of hearing? Saying you’d rather die than being disabled talks more about the social status of a disabled person, than the disability itself, as there is so much diversity in disability.
It’s okay to think, “I’d rather die than having [x] disability”. Although you should never say that to someone with the disability because it amounts to saying “if I were like you I would kill myself”. But saying “I’d rather die than be disabled” is not okay, because you’re missing out on the nuance of disability and therefore commenting on the social status and not the disability itself.
I really disagree with your reasoning. I think that someone might simply consider any disability a reason not to live, and you are nobody to say that they missed the nuance of different disabilities, or that it’s ridiculous to think you’d rather die than being hard of hearing (which is what I think you implied). I disagree with the blanket statement, but I think your arguments are invalid both from the theoretical standpoint than from the practical one (when x becomes a list of 100 items you might as well use a blanket statement).
You’re aware that disability can literally mean being slightly nearsighted right? Or losing your sense of smell? Or having ADHD? Disability can also be temporary, would you kill yourself because you broke your wrist?
Unless you are a radical eugenicist. It’s absurd to say you would kill yourself for all of these as a blanket statement. Especially considering the fact no one has the cerebral capacity to be aware of every single disability.
And anyways, it’s very questionable to come in here and say things like this. This community is a safe space and support group for chronically ill people, so coming here and saying “oh hi, if I was like you I’d kill myself” is just incredibly insensitive and inappropriate.
I am aware, and I am also aware that people are free to think what they want for themselves and I am nobody to judge them. You might think it’s ridiculous, but theirs is the only life affected by this, so they are well within their rights to have all the opinions they have on their life.
Not being aware of any disability is true, but their statement is relative to what they are aware of, not a scientific statement (since it’s a personal opinion), and as I said, you can also approximate to the blanket statement rather than mentioning 100 conditions.
I agree it might be insensitive to bring it up, but neither me nor the person you answered to brought it up, we merely answered to a comment that mentioned this expression.
peak MeRiToCrAcY
