←back to thread

283 points belter | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
SpicyLemonZest ◴[] No.42130414[source]
I dunno. I don't like the idea of companies holding inquisitions on just how disabled people are, but if we're going to hold the expansive view of disabilities the article takes for granted it seems inevitable. When someone claims that they're unable to work in an office because they're suffering from a stress disorder, it's reasonable to have some followup questions about how they manage the disorder on other occasions that call for them to leave home.
replies(7): >>42130478 #>>42130480 #>>42130501 #>>42130556 #>>42130654 #>>42131373 #>>42131403 #
zeroonetwothree ◴[] No.42130480[source]
It’s unfortunate for people that have legit disabilities that the system is abused in this way :(
replies(1): >>42130572 #
no_wizard ◴[] No.42130572[source]
I think the worry around any of the system being abused is louder than the actual instances of abuse.

I'm sure it happens, but people get all up in arms about the potential for abuse without even looking at how often it might even happen to begin with.

replies(1): >>42130647 #
1. mathgeek ◴[] No.42130647[source]
One needs only look at the recent political weaponization of the small number of transgender kids playing sports to see another example of a small number of instances being generalized for outrage. Doesn’t make the needs less important, but it does happen.