Or worse still (and likelier still by far!), am I a left-liberal, who am sick to the back teeth of a certain proportion of left-liberals ignoring matters that many right-libertarians often do have the decency to reflect upon carefully?
How about a worst-case scenario, huh?
I like worse-case scenarios.
There are times when they are a little bit more...
'Honest.'
I am not diversity.
I am not neurodiversity.
What you either fail to understand, or at the very least, fail to consistently recognize, is that a pluralistic and democratic and free political system should not tolerate the idealization and 'celebration' of disability; any more than it should tolerate the denigration of disability.
For neither Nazism nor the mere opposite of Nazism (which latter is itself a form of toxic-corporatist 'Konformismus,') have anything to do with genuine pluralism and democracy. Sincerely respecting and acknowledging differences is as different from 'celebrating diversity' as it is from Hitler's eugenics and the death-camps of Auschwitz.
True, you are no Hitlers, no Gobineaus, no Galtons.
You merely do the opposite.
Admittedly, right-libertarians and left-liberal critics of the cult of 'diversity' will significantly disagree on some matters. There's room for significant disagreement on what role and attitude a government should assume towards disabled individuals, and whether some interventions are reasonable; and if so, which interventions, under what circumstances? I do not expect a false consensus here, or an uncritical alliance; I'll leave that to the toxic corporatists!
But there's one thing, however, that right-libertarians affirm, and that I am impatient to see all left-liberals affirm too, regardless of petty sectarian squabbles:
Disability is not fun, sexy or slick.
It may not be hell on earth for everyone.
But it's certainly not heaven on earth.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
