Why YSK: because what seems like equal situation from surface isn’t always equal opportunity for all. And even when equal measure of help is provided, it might not be equally useful.

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It represents unintentional assistance though, not a bias that exists on purpose. Ex: old building entrance is higher than sidewalk, there’s stairs to go up, it wasn’t the intention to cut access to the disabled, it’s a consequence of the default choice.

    • VikingHippie
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some of it IS intentional, though, or (as in your own example) lack of intentionality from another time with a lot less attention being paid to equal access for people outside of the “standard human” powerful people had in mind when building structures both physical and societal.

      There being a default at all is a form of discrimination and harm against the people that it disadvantages, whether or not it’s intentional.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The inequality wasn’t intentional, people didn’t put stairs so disabled wouldn’t have access, they put stairs because that’s what you do when you want people to go up and it had that unintended effect.

        The tree didn’t grow leaning on one side so the kid on the wrong side wouldn’t get apples, it grew like that because nature made it.

        Giving them ladders was intentional, building a ramp too narrow for wheelchairs that’s intentional… And that’s the difference between panel 1 and 2, they don’t have tools that are supposed to help them at first, then they are given a tool and they’re inappropriate for one of them.

    • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even if the inequality is completely accidental, shouldn’t we do something about it? Like, we don’t have to make everyone millionares, but if the system accidently makes some people suffer, shouldn’t we try to change that?

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Never said nothing should be done about it, just pointing out that there’s in fact a difference between panel 1 and panel 2 contrary to what people are arguing.