Watching the “Ice Bucket Challenge” phenomenon become the hit social media trend of this summer, I have decided to start a new series on this blog: Arguments Not Worth Having.
Here are three right off the bat:
1. Goofy disability awareness or fundraising campaigns.
2. The unbeatable popularity of fundraising for cures.
3. Language that likens disability to war or a fistfight.
I haven’t fully worked out the criteria for determining which arguments I believe are not worth having, but they involve some combination of the following factors:
- The thing is something disability-related that non-disabled people really like.
- A non-trivial number of disabled people seem to like it, too.
- A non-trivial number of disabled people seem to like it, too.
- The thing is something I don’t like, or I think it’s silly, or I feel uncomfortable with it, but it doesn’t really offend me.
- I could make a logical, consistent argument against the thing, but I would really have to work at it, and the argument would have at least two or three distinct layers to get through.
- The likelihood that anyone will be convinced or even understand my thinking on the thing is below 20%.
- There is a 90% possibility that at the end of the argument, I will sound like an over-educated, unemotional robot with no human feelings or sense of humor.
- The thing is stupid, but not harmful. The consequences of leaving the thing alone are low.
No comments:
Post a Comment