How Not To Teach Inclusivity Part Two

A short essay I wrote in response to a long "argument" with someone obsessed with calling the previous OP ableist for not wanting someone at her birthday party.

My overall arguments are 1) that it is not morally acceptable to coerce someone into being inclusive, 1b) that you cannot be accommodating without also being compassionate, and 2) that teaching compassion can only be done *with* compassion. My supporting reasonings include how violation of consent is a valid reason for a person to become angry and defensive, how lack of compassion creates situations that are no more accommodating than before, and how behavioral science indicates that OP will continue to associate related circumstances (ie, physical disability) with negative feelings. I also specifically referred to Alfie Kohn's book Unconditional Parenting, as he is a subject matter expert who breaks down and demonstrates this science more clearly than I can.

As for a summary of why I don't feel listened to:

When I said that being psychologically excluded while physically present sucks balls, you answered that they could have picked a different venue. 

When I asked how that would solve the problem (of exclusion) you changed the subject and started talking about how we don't know if the wheelchair user even wanted to go. 

When I personalized the "being excluded in person sucks" argument because I am a disabled person, you deemphasized my experience as a disabled person and started making an argument that accommodation is actually some kind of daily requirement (?) that doesn't require compassion (??), which took me a while to even understand, because I don't agree with your premises.

(You pasting in the definition of compassion was rather insulting, by the way, thanks for assuming I don't know how to use a dictionary - also, other entries exist besides the first one. It's fine that you don't believe compassion to be an action, but I do, and understanding that different people use different definitions is the first step of any kind of cross-cultural or intercultural communication. Writing me off as "wrong" simply because I don't use exactly the words you want me to use is illogical at best, definitely borders on intellectual ableism or xenomisia.) 

I did attempt to refute your argument that "accommodation does not require compassion" by trying to break down both premises together; because accommodating people by any other reason than compassion - especially your "you only deserve to receive what you're willing to provide" or quid pro quo philosophy - is driven by unhealthy values, and is incredibly ableist because disabled people literally are not given the resources in this society to have "enough to share" - by which I mean accommodation is no sort of standard behavior, and accommodation without compassion tends to be ableist and not truly accommodation at all.

Granted I don't think I expressed myself clearly, I was starting to get frustrated: My basic framework starts with observing how everyone in this society is ableist (and racist) because we live in a society where you can only survive by participating in ableist (and racist) social structures. Failing to provide accommodation for people with whom you live and work is ableism, and removing agency is cruelty - BUT, both are so baked into the American System that many people believe they're a natural part of life, a "default" that isn't wrong in any way. Therefore, even though "helping" people while removing their agency or ability would appear to be accommodation, it really isn't - compassion is required to ensure that you act in accordance with the person's desires, not what you assume their best interests are.

(Pro tip, anyone who makes less than $500k annually would benefit from being in a system that doesn't use exploitation of the lower classes as a foundation.)

You certainly managed to redirect back to the wheelchair user's desires at the end, but continued to ignore my experience as a disabled person and also ignored the far more important concern present in OP's story - that of her parents' removal of her own agency. It is a rule that when a person of a discriminated group says they feel that a certain pattern of behavior is discrimination because of their difference, you *believe them*, because they are the people most aware of their own experience. 

When OP expressed concern that the reason she had to deal with an uninvited guest (who was physically disabled) at her birthday parties and her fully-abled sibling didn't was due to her autism, then that alone makes it a very good claim of ableism and you're going to need a much stronger argument than "well it's just her word" to disbelieve her. Ableism is too common to write it off like that. Same goes for racism! and misogyny!

Finally you managed to insinuate that I'm "entitled" twice and then also gaslight me about what you said... and your final shot is "well you weren't listening to me either"? I hope this paragraph proves that claim false even to you.