[ SECRET POST #6313 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6313 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.

































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 10 secrets from Secret Submission Post #902.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

05. https://i.imgur.com/DZnK426.png

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, there is nuance here but this still feels off to me. Like "disabled characters are not going to be able to accomplish the tasks done by protagonists in the type of stories I enjoy" makes sense for certain disabilities for some characters. Like sure maybe the main characters of an action thing aren't gonna have major physical disabilities, not saying they have to. That doesn't mean that there can't be side characters who do, or they can't have non-physical disabilities. (Or the major characters could have physical disabilities ANYWAY and it can make the story more interesting bc you get to explore how they deal with that. I'm just saying, there are options, genre doesn't necessitate the nonexistence of disabled people.)

And "either magic/technology should be available to fix the problem in that setting so why is it still there OR the setting is not set up to accommodate the needs of someone with a major disability and they're not going to functionally exist at all" I don't really get how you can say this and act like eugenics is irrelevant to the conversation. IRL, people have been helping other people with disabilities survive since we were hunter gatherers, so like being in a harsh survival situation doesn't mean there aren't disabled people. A setting that ACTIVELY prevents disabled people from existing is one that's doing eugenics. If there's magic/technology to fix physical problems, that's a bit different, but there are people who are considered disabled now who wouldn't want their bodies/brains altered. Like, if a setting canonically has no autistic people because they're all cured now, that is in fact, bad and horrifying. And I think even with that kind of thing there are interesting stories to be told about the details of it, what happens if the technology breaks down, how does the magic create weird new problems, etc.

Sorry for wall of text, I'm not saying that every story has to fill a disability representation quota. I don't actually give a shit if a given fantasy story doesn't have any disabled characters. I'm just annoyed at the idea that disabled people don't/shouldn't have a place in a whole-ass genre of fiction.

[(Anonymous)]

This seems reasonable to me.

[(Anonymous)]

All of this. Any premise of "disabled people shouldn't exist in this world" is inherently a eugenics argument (not to mention disability is a minority that's always taking new members, so even if you want to argue about genes, accidents and illness still happen)

[(Anonymous)]

+100000

[meadowphoenix]

yeah, i think OP is missing an understanding of community, even writ small!, that is pretty prevalent in sci-fi and fantasy. sci-fi and fantasy tend comment on or deal with societies. and the level of "ability" you have in an environment is going to be dependent on the society of that environment and how they have developed day to day activity. that's going to comment on disability inherently. that's especially true if there's a level of danger for which the consequences are not complete non-existence. if there's sci-fi and fantasy which doesn't seems to consider that, that's actually a particular conceit on the genre that comes with particular tropes. considering it a default of the genre isn't great (and to me makes for very shallow sci-fi, specifically).

[(Anonymous)]

+1, "how do disabled people live in this setting" is way more interesting that just not having any. DS9's story with Dr Bashir was an especially interesting take on this: he may have been learning disabled as a young child (or possibly just not as developmentally advanced as his parents' expectations) and they got him illegally genetically modified. It worked pretty well in his case, but not so well in some other people, and we get to see the emotional fallout from both "unsuccessful" and "successful" cases.

[(Anonymous)]

I always feel weird about the discussions around a cure for autism, and it makes me think that it was a huge mistake for us to conceive of it as a broad spectrum disorder.

When we think of autistic people now, we think of someone like Temple Grandin; or someone who has some social problems or sensory issues but who is otherwise high-functioning. We don't think of the deeply, profoundly disabled people who have it, the people who can't speak or take care of themselves at all; people who repeatedly bang their heads against the wall (or engage in other such harmful behaviors), or who sit in a room doing nothing but tearing paper into shreds and react aggressively when someone comes to feed or change them, or who go into violent rages and seriously hurt their caregivers, etc. The idea that it would be "horrific" to cure those people sits poorly with me.

I dislike that people have in recent times advocated for doing away with "high-functioning" and "low-functioning," because there really is a distinction and a world of difference between the two. And on the low-functioning end, there really are those who need something much, much more than just society becoming more welcoming and understanding of neurodiversity.

[kaffy_r]

I know I should have something more intelligent to say than "Agreed" ... but... Agreed.

[(Anonymous)]

I think because to a lot of people, especially those on the spectrum, the problem is that the current society is... Very, very ableist. You can't even get into some buildings with wheelchairs despite the laws around that. It's just not doable.

I think a lot more should go into understanding autism and what causes them to become so violent in those cases vs "just cure 'em and make 'em normal" and IF there's no way for society to be better for them to function in, then we can talk about cures. But right now, the idea of a cure is centered solely around parent who don't want disabled children and making people more productive cogs in the proverbial machine. It's not for the betterment of their own life, but for the betterment of the fat cats up top who want worker drones.

[(Anonymous)]

Not to mention the fact that there are in fact plenty of higher-functioning people who would like to be cured, too - people who are tired of having to deal with said social problems and sensory issues and would love to not have those and to be able to live a normal life without having to constantly worry about that kind of thing.

Huh.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, off the top of my head, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Harry Potter have had canon disabled characters. Yes, some of the aids they have are better than the ones we have now, but they do exist in canon. So, it's not like it isn't doable.

[(Anonymous)]

Luke Skywalker is still disabled even with his disability aid, fwi

[(Anonymous)]

Yep!

See also: Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III, Edward Elric, Toph Bei Fong, Furiosa, etc.

[erinptah]

Yeah, "society should have the magic/tech to fix this" isn't a handwave/writeoff, it's a whole slew of worldbuilding questions about how that works.

Who builds those perfect robot prosthetics, and can everyone afford to buy them? Who diagnoses and prescribes the magic antidepressant potions? Does every blind person choose to use a high-tech vision-visor, or are there people who decline (or is it not a choice)? If you drop your anti-chronic-pain amulet down a ravine mid-quest, how easy is it to replace?

You don't have to make any of this the *focus* of a story to have it *there*. At the very least, it's texture. Fictional worlds are better with texture.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

The current WoW expansion has one of the faction leaders as a centaur who happens to be Deaf. Considering all the magic and technological nonsense in the game there's probably no reason there couldn't be a magic fix, but instead there's a wealth of not-quest-relevant information on how to interact with her (talk directly to her even though someone else interprets for her), how she handles being Deaf (she has a guide dog and there's a specific interaction that explains how he helps!), and other stuff. In fact you can pet most of the dogs in the area but if you try to pet hers it tells you he's on duty.

It was one of the most interesting things in the whole area imo!

[(Anonymous)]

And Darth Vader not only has many prosthetics and synthetic organs, but a ventilator, an annuciator (to help his damaged vocal cords produce speech), a feeding system, and more.

[(Anonymous)]

I highly recommend the Radiolab episode 'The Right Stuff' for an interesting discussion of disability as it relates to space travel, and perspectives on how our speculation about non-human life can be surprisingly ableist on top of being human-centric.

[feotakahari]

I think the interaction of fantasy and disability can be pretty cool. Magically powered arm that needs to be recharged off of mana. Familiar that reminds you when you’ve forgotten to take your potions. Who needs a wheelchair when you’ve got a flying carpet?

[akacat]

A book that can read itself to someone who can’t read would be cool. And a painting or mannequin that can give real-time sign interpretation.

[(Anonymous)]

One big example that comes to mind is Fullmetal Alchemist. Not only is the main character missing an arm and leg, but there is a variety from fantasy based (characters who no longer have a physical form or can no longer feel sensations that are attached to an object) to characters suffering from war injuries on both a physical and mental level (particularly PTSD).

[(Anonymous)]

Some disabilities maybe do not make sense. But sci-fi is much more interesting when they work with it in a new interesting ways. Maybe this character uses synthetic legs to walk. They are still disabled. People in a bright future still get sick or loose limbs or have brains wired different.
My favorite example from a last show I've watched is Bodies. It has interesting take. Character has mobility aid but it means they need to work for a quite dystopian government for that. And going against the system means they loose this aid. I think it's quite an interesting plot.

SA

[(Anonymous)]

Hey, you know. I will take recs with disabled characters or plots in a sci-fi if you have them

[(Anonymous)]

You can have science fiction where the technology isn't advanced enough to cure all disabilities and health conditions and it's still science fiction.

You can have fantasy where the magic just doesn't work that way (or there is no magic) and it's still fantasy.

[(Anonymous)]

I really appreciate speculative fiction that invents new disabilities and explores them, alongside lots of various types of kicking ass. Geordi LaForge springs to mind -- yes, he's got technology that erases a lot of the disabling portions of being blind, but it still comes at a physical and mental cost.