[SalmonSnarker]

GP is mostly ranting around some methodological individualism garbage when they could have been reading about the social model of disability and finding it's not that contradictory to their stated beliefs and probably not deserving of outright dismissal.

> Individuals exist, "society" has never existed and will never exist. It's only individuals who can take actions. "Society" does not have any means at all, because it's just a mirage within the imagination of some people.

It's one of those critiques that hits really hard when you've been doing lines of cocaine off of stacks of Hayek and Mises books and doesn't really inspire anyone outside of those niches. "Oooh! Checkmate! Got you now, Statist! That's not a society! it's a collection of individuals!" etc.

If you were to say something like "an individual with impaired eye sight is not considered disabled when they have access to eye glasses. disability does not consist solely of an individual's medical impairment, but in the relationship between the individual, other individuals, and available infrastructural and technological means" maybe it'd hit better for them.

"the obstacle is not some property of the individual experiencing an access issue, but are created by a system made by other people who didn't provide alternative access methods" (roughly the same thing) is just super objectionable though /eyeroll

[carlosjobim]

I'd like to say that your comment speaks for itself - in many ways. It demonstrates how somebody who holds a strong belief in "society" reacts and acts towards another person when their core belief is questioned. Your behaviour is predictable.