• flicker
    link
    fedilink
    -41 year ago

    In your example, you can still say “everyone can learn to paint” because of accessibility options for those without arms or whatever.

    “Everyone can run” is an objectively false statement that better illustrates the point this user is trying to make.

    Not only is it easy to alter what you say to be more inclusive (of you’re not being an asshole about it), it also makes for better content.

    Say I want to make a video about playing games on the Switch. “Anybody can play this game!” I might say. Then I can take a minute to discuss accessibility options for people who, say, only have use of one hand. “You can buy this modified Switch controller for a mere ten dollars online, which allows for one-handed play, and after some practice, is pretty easy to use!”

    Better, more interesting content without being an exclusionary dickhole.

    • @gaylord_fartmaster
      link
      English
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But there will always be someone that can’t do literally any potential activity.

      I gave an example of someone who is comatose. Is it ableist to say “Anybody can play this game!” if someone in a coma couldn’t regardless of accessibility options? Why is it ok to exclude them, but not people with other disabilities?

      Edit: I’m going to respond to your other comment here too so we don’t have two separate threads going. What is even the point of saying “Almost anybody can do X!” or “Most people can learn to do X!”? The original purpose of the statement was to be encouraging, this is just plainly stating an obvious fact.