Spicy title, I know, but please read on. I’m not using the phrase “mental disability” like an ableist liberal would. This isn’t an insult, it’s an examination of psychology and appropriation.
Spicy title, I know, but please read on. I’m not using the phrase “mental disability” like an ableist liberal would. This isn’t an insult, it’s an examination of psychology and appropriation.
Sorry for the delayed answer.
Yes. You’re right. However, I would argue that there isn’t such thing as a “mind and it’s subjective experiences inside it’s own head” without a social reality supporting it. You’re coming from a Descartian point of view, and I’m going through a Hegelian one.
This is not dehumanizing high support needs disabled people who can’t communicate effectively, but pointing out that they are still part of our world, and we’re part of theirs. Even if neither us and them recognize that.
That’s where I hard disagree beyond philosophy. Because it doesn’t matter if You don’t understand or recognize a social construct, it will still affect you and produce reactions, ingraining itself in you. As long as someone can experience anything at all in this world, they will experience the consequences of social decisions, and by consequence, a mirror of decisions made by this society. And as long a someone can produce any behavior at all (save reflex), they can and will communicate.
This consciousness is always imperfect even with NTs, but it’s always there.