After The Election: What I'd Like To Know

I doubt we will get much reliable data on how disabled people actually voted this year, but I would still like to know ...

Did the percentage of eligible voters with disabilities who actually voted go up, down, or stay about the same?

If only voters with disabilities had voted, who would have won?

How many voters with disabilities consider disability issues when they vote? How much do their disability experiences affect their votes, compared to all other influences?

Are there any "deal breaker" issues that cause disabled people to override their personal politics and change who they vote for?

Is there a correlation between how disabled people think about their disabilities and how they vote? Do disabled people who see their disabilities as a medical problem vote differently than those who view disability as a social issue or identity?

My guess:

Disabled people who are involved in disability culture and activism probably voted mostly for Clinton, some for other candidates, relatively few for Trump.

And ...

Disabled people who aren't involved in disability culture and activism, or who don't regard disability as an important part of their identity, probably voted about the same as any random sample of voters in their particular region of the U.S., with disability having no effect, or very little.

So ...

A lot probably depends on what percentages of the total disabled population are and aren't "activists," or whatever we want to call the disability version of "woke." Is that a lot of us, or would we be shocked to know how few?

Weekly Reading List

Back to weekly article reviews!

Disabled People Will Die Under Trump: An Emergency Plea to Allies
Carolyn Zaikowski, Medium - November 18, 2016

This will not be an easy read for anyone not at least familiar with current radical and social justice dialog. It may not even be comprehensible for standard-brand voters. That’s because it is an urgent and stealthily critical message FOR the radical left / social justice communities. The author says a lot of what I have been feeling about people further to my Left during pretty much the whole 2016 campaign. There can be a degree of privileged detachment and unreality not just to “white liberals,” but to cutting edge Leftists who often see themselves as the true realists of the Left. Purposefully ditched or obliviously botched election outcomes have real life consequences, an often ugly, harmful ones. I sense that Zaikowski’s politics are quite far to the Left of mine. For one thing, I never bought the idea that Hillary Clinton was actively awful as she seems to have done, despite voting for her in the end. But I relate so much to so much of what she says here about the Left’s frequent abstractness, and its ableism.

How to call your reps when you have social anxiety
Cordelia, Echo Through The Fog - November 19, 2016

I have to confess that I am one of those people who rolls his eyes just a bit when I hear people talk about having “anxiety.” I can’t help being kind of a crabby old guy and lumping it all together with the stereotype that Millennials, in particular, are an especially fragile and helpless generation, compare to … well, mine. On the other hand I also strongly suspect that the more frequent and open talk about anxiety is a positive sign that problems people have always had are now less stigmatized, and therefore maybe easier to cope with. And it’s hard to deny that there are people who experience mental turmoil around everyday activities … turmoil so intense that the word “anxiety” seems ridiculously inadequate. All of which is just background to why I found this article / comic so wonderful. On one level, it’s an advocacy tip sheet for people with anxiety. On another level, it’s a pretty great all-purpose guide to calling lawmakers’ offices, something lots of people find daunting, whether or not they actually have “anxiety.”

Along the Autism Spectrum, a Path Through Campus Life
Jan Hoffman, New York Times - November 19, 2016

I think that if I were autistic, I would be mortified by a lot of what’s said in this article. It tips the balance between accurate depiction of autism and stereotype, placing it just across the line into the realm of simplistic stereotyping. At the same time, the article has a positive, empowering message overall, and to most readers, it will probably constitute a positive revelation. It is certainly miles better than anything Autism Speaks produces. There’s value in that.

Is This Man Smart Enough To Face The Death Penalty?
Peter Aldhous, BuzzFeed - November 15, 2016

This article, too, explores the murky boundaries between accurate realism and crude stereotype. It examines how some states, like Texas, use a sort of popular conception of “mental retardation,” rather than careful clinical criteria, to determine who can and cannot be executed for capital crimes. The thing is, some of the Texas criteria, based in popular stereotypes, also seem to make a little bit of sense. The problem is that intellectual disability is far more complicated and subtle than literary archetypes. Maybe the key is to start with the popular conception, and modify it with expert assessment. Of course to me, the other key is to abolish the death penalty altogether. But that is, I guess, a different discussion.

Questions you need answered if traveling with a disability
Priscilla Liguori, AOL Lifestyle - November 21, 2016

Here we have what might be termed the conciliatory approach to individual self-advocacy for disabled people. It’s all perfectly sensible, assuming there is goodwill and eagerness to please all around. Unfortunately, this patient, understanding, personal diligence approach doesn’t take take laziness, stubborn bureaucracy, or ingrained ableism into account. Still, if you’re privileged enough to be traveling by air, these tips may actually work about 2/3 of the time. It’s a useful guide, unless and until you encounter real resistance or hostility.

All Of The Election Blogging

Two days ago I sent my final election blog post for the Center for Disability Rights website.

Blogging about the 2016 Elections for CDR has been a great pleasure, and a learning experience. I got paid, which is really, really great in a way that has not just about the dollar amounts collected. I had to meet deadlines, whereas in normal blogging the deadlines are self-imposed and therefore kind of flimsy. And blogging forced me to pay close attention to the debates, which I usually skip because I can’t take the stress of watching “my” candidate possibly fail. I’m not sure any of the individual debates taught me much, but all together, I think I really did get a clearer sense of all the candidates.

Anyway, it was a great experience. I haven’t read all of these posts over again yet, but here they are, for posterity:

October, 2015

And How Will That Work For Disabled People? The 3rd Republican Debate

November, 2015

It’s Up To Us - The 4th Republican Debate

December, 2015

The Full Plate and The Missing Topic - 3rd Democratic Debate
Safety At All Costs - 5th Republican Debate
Mocking Trump
Disappointing, But Not A Waste Of Time - 2nd Democratic Debate

January, 2016

Shoot For The Moon, Or Play It Safe - 4th Democratic Debate
Blowing On Sparks - 6th Republican Debate
Passing A Low Bar: Hillary Clinton Answers a Disability Question

February, 2016

I Guess We're On Our Own - 10th Republican Debate
No Time For Disability - 9th Republican Debate
It's Time To Do Better - 6th Democratic Debate
The 8th Republican Debate
Bad Conflict, Good Conflict - 5th Democratic Debate
A Real Disability Issue, But Is Anyone Listening? - 7th Republican Debate

March, 2016

Now Let's Hear From The Rest Of Them
A Bit Of Republican Tone Policing: 12th Republican Presidential Debate
Deepish Thoughts From A Contentious Debate: 8th Democratic Presidential Debate
Just Stop It: 7th Democratic Presidential Debate
Moderators Please! Ask A Disability Question!: 11th Republican Presidential Debate

April, 2016

Undecided: 9th Democratic Presidential Debate

May, 2016

Nothing But Questions

June, 2016

Top 5 Disability Issues
(Paired with this blog post by Emily Munson)
Five Modest Proposals

July, 2016

On Mass Shootings and Mental Disability
The Ugly Side of Disability Rhetoric
Emily & Andrew Discuss The Party Platforms

August, 2016

Asking Donald Trump

September, 2016

First Presidential Candidates Debate
“Crisis Simulations”
The Disability Integration Act

October, 2016

The Third, and Final, Presidential Debate
Back To Basics
Interrupting Cow: The Vice-Presidential Debate

November, 2016

Lessons Learned & Signs of Hope
Final Thoughts Before Voting

New Blogging Plan

I am officially ending my commitment to daily blogging. I haven't blogged daily for several months already. The difference now is that I'm going to stop feeling bad about it, and re-commit to a plan I think I can stick to.

Why now?

First of all, the election is over, but my involvement with #CripTheVote will continue. (See yesterday's post). #CripTheVote things will occasionally spill over into Disability Thinking, and vice-versa, but I am trying to keep the two projects separate. #CripTheVote requires time, energy, and thought, and it’s probably more important now than it was before November 8.

Second, my part time work has changed a bit. It now includes doing social media for my local Center for Independent Living, the North Country Center for Independence. That means a least a little bit of every day ... and every day's bit of imagination and ideas about disability ... will be devoted to NCCI, and I've only got so much brain space to allocate to this stuff.

So, here's the plan for Disability Thinking blogging:

- A Weekly Reading List every Monday.
- A regular blog post on any topic every Friday.
- Disability Blogger Linkups will be on the last weekend of each month.
- I'll post a Throwback Thursday occasionally, when there is an interesting past article to highlight on a given Thursday.
- Every so often I might post something extra, but only when *necessary*. For instance, tomorrow I'm going to post a wrap-up of my election blogging for the Center for Disability Rights.

I am still thinking about starting a YouTube vlog to sort of replace the discontinued Disability.TV Podcast. That probably won't start until sometime in January, 2017, if I follow through on the idea at all.

That's about all. I have enjoyed daily blogging, and I think the discipline of it got me off to a good start. I hope this more modest routine will get me back on track and produce some better pieces over the next year.

Looking Ahead: The Future of #CripTheVote

The 2016 Presidential election is officially over. This was an unprecedented election for many reasons. When #CripTheVote started this past February, our primary goal was “to engage both voters and politicians in a productive discussion about disability issues in the United States, with the hope that Disability takes on greater prominence within the American political landscape.”

As the co-partners of #CripTheVote, we’re here to tell you about our expanded vision thanks to the participation of the disability community.

#CripTheVote is a nonpartisan online movement activating and engaging disabled people on policies and practices important to the disability community. Our movement is grounded in online conversations encouraging individual and collective action in the face of inequality, ableism, and oppression in all forms. Our movement is intersectional, local, global, and focused on the political participation of disabled people.

Specifically, #CripTheVote will …

• Continue to be an intersectional movement by and for the entire disability community.
• Keep our hashtag as it is.
• Remain online, community-based, and as decentralized as possible.
• Expand our focus beyond voting to other forms of political participation.
• Ask questions and demand accountability from our elected and public officials.
• Engage with disability issues at the local, state, national, and international levels.
• Provide a space for conversation as stimulus for collective action.
• Support direct actions and organizers by sharing and amplifying information about them.
• Partner with disabled people and organizations in broadening our movement’s perspectives and expertise.
• Refrain from endorsing or supporting candidates, public officials, or political parties.
• Oppose and critique any policy or practice that potentially harms disabled people.
• Explore and promote promising ideas for better disability policies and practices.
• We do not intend to become a nonprofit organization, raise money, or otherwise “professionalize” #CripTheVote.

Feedback

Please complete this online survey and let us know what you’d like to see in the future from #CripTheVote:

Click here to take the survey

For a Word or Google document of the survey, please contact Andrew Pulrang (see below). If you prefer to email us directly with your comments, please do!

Gratitude

We are so grateful to the disability community for making #CripTheVote the force that it has become. It will take our continued effort as a community to keep things going. Without all of you taking ownership of the hashtag we could not have the impact we have had, and make no mistake we have had an impact. The level of the discussion around disability issues has been raised in all spheres. Politicians, the media and the public know that our community can no longer be placated by a mere mention and that we demand engagement. This is something we can build on as we move into an uncertain future. Thank you all.

In solidarity,

Gregg Beratan, Andrew Pulrang, and Alice Wong
Co-Partners, #CripTheVote

Stay In Touch!

Alice:   DisabilityVisibilityProject@gmail.com
Andrew:   apulrang@charter.net
Gregg:   G.Beratan@yahoo.com

“Like” the #CripTheVote Facebook Page for updates and events.

Subscribe to the Disability Visibility Project and Disability Thinking for related blog posts.

Follow the co-partners on Twitter:
@AndrewPulrang @GreggBeratan @SFdirewolf (also @DisVisibility)

***

"A Movement begins when large numbers of people, having reached the point where they feel they can’t take the way things are any more, see some hope of improving their daily lives and begin to move on their own to bring about change.

"A Movement begins to assume momentum when people begin exploring visionary answers to the questions being asked at the grassroots and engage in practical activities which can be replicated without huge bureaucracies. In the early stages of a Movement, the visionary answers being explored usually strike most people as too radical or too impractical. If they don’t, they are probably not profound enough to build a Movement."

–Grace Lee Boggs

[Excerpt from Grace Lee Boggs, “Towards A New Vision and a New Movement,” presented at the University of Michigan Law School Symposium, October 13-14, 1995.]

Post Election Thinking

I need to document my present thinking about what Donald Trump's election means for disabled people, and to disability culture and activism. Don't expect a smooth, compact essay. It's more like a brain dump, roughly sorted into some broad categories. Here we go ...

Different Reactions

Some of us feel like our lives are in physical danger ... from a security state on steroids, from violent bigots who feel empowered and approved again, or by loss of health insurance and other supports we need to survive and live decently.

Some of us feel that our identities ... the core of who we are ... have been fundamentally rejected by our neighbors and fellow citizens. It feels like a huge percentage of Americans said, "We're done caring about you and your problems, if we ever really cared at all." Maybe we already knew a lot of people felt that way, but it now looks like a lot more people feel that way than most of us thought. This is somewhat true for disabled people, but even more so for black, LGBTQ, Latinx, women, undocumented people, etc. And, if you are a combination of these things, you've got to feel pretty comprehensively unwanted right now.

Some of us feel morally offended that such a morally offensive man was elected. This may be the least important impact. It's the pearl-clutching, "Oh dear me, that dreadful man" reaction. But, it's a reaction people have, and it's based on real things. It feels gross.

Some of us are worried that specific policy changes ... both predictable and unanticipated ... will shatter the fragile support structures of our lives. This is arguably the most important thing to worry about. It's the kind of thing I and many disability activists kept trying to discuss during the campaign. Instead, we got some valuable calling out of Trump's epic rudeness, and the beginnings of political recognition for disabled people, but not much substance. Well, we're going to get a shit ton of substance now.

Different Threats

As it was during the campaign, it will be during the Trump Administration. There are two different but related threats to disabled people:

1. The moral threat ... the damage that could be done to our self-esteem and to public perceptions of us by things that Trump says and the attitudes he validates in others. His mockery of NYT reporter Serge Kovaleski falls into this category.

2. The policy threat ... the actual things the Trump Administration could do that would materially harm disabled people. This includes possible repeal of the ACA, block granting Medicaid and Medicare, weakening the ADA, and ether passively or actively encouraging even more police violence than we already have.

One threatens our feelings. The other threatens our lives.

During the campaign, it felt like people understood the moral threat, but were a bit sketchy on the exact nature of the policy threat. That's going to have to change fast.

Different Tactics

What should we do now?

Do not:

"Reach out" as we normally would to a generic Republican administration, in hopes of finding some fabled, elusive "common ground" that will miraculously result in a good deal for disabled people. For one thing, these aren't generic Republicans. For another, it will be our everlasting shame if we celebrate protecting slivers of Social Security and Medicaid, (if we are very lucky,) while racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim policies get a green light. Finally, this "common ground" is mostly an illusion ... though in theory it really shouldn't be.

Do not:

Focus extra hard and narrowly on disability issues, while treating "other people’s” concerns as a distraction. Is it really necessary to explain why trying to cut favorable separate deals for disabled people would be a weasel move, and ineffective to boot? I don't mean we shouldn't fight our specific battles. Nobody is better qualified to defend disability policies than disabled people. But we must not shut out all the other battles on the premise that in the new environment, the only way to "get ours" is by currying favor at the expense or neglect of others.

Do:

Engage with the new administration, but aggressively, with clear markers of what we are not willing to tolerate in changes to disability policy. Resist the temptation to look virtuous by offering cooperation or common ground up front. We may need to compromise at some point, but that comes at the end, not the start. We may have to prioritize though ... something a lot of activists hate doing.

Do:

Double down on intersectional partnerships and solidarity with other marginalized people, while making sure disability is always part of the coalition and its priorities. I'm not that good at discussing intersectionality, so I'll leave that point there for the moment, along with a Wikipedia link. I don't fully understand it, but by instinct I am for it and open to learning. I would love to find a really good "plain language" explanation of intersectionality and why it is important. Again, I know some specifics, but I'm not able to put them into words at this point.

Do:

Make an extra effort to reach out to disabled people who aren’t activists, don’t like or don't trust politics, and don’t view disability as a political identity. It feels like there are millions of disabled Americans who know almost nothing about what disability activists do and think. Some of them probably voted for Trump. Many of them may not have voted. Most of them probably don't think disability is a "political" thing at all. Unless I am mistaken, it will soon be impossible to ignore how much of a political thing disability is. Those of us deeply at home in disability activism and culture owe it to our fellow disabled people to engage them wherever they are. If we are going to reach out to any sort of "opposition," or "other side," I think it should be to fellow disabled people at the grassroots.

Reading and Writing: A Good Start

#CripTheVote: Post Election Feelings & #WhatsNext

Disability Rights Advocates Are Terrified Of A Donald Trump White House
Daniel Marans, Huffington Post - November 10, 2016

ADAPT's Open Letter to President-Elect Trump
ADAPT - November 10, 2016

Statement from the National Disability Leadership Alliance on Solidarity and the 2016 Presidential Election
National Disability Leadership Alliance - November 10, 2016

Closing Argument

Assholes
Duncan Black, Eschaton - November 3, 2016

I wasn’t going post a closing argument for this year’s election, since I’ve channeled all my political attention into #CripTheVote and blogging for the Center for Disability Rights. But in this short post by my favorite blogger, I found a theme. So here it is. Please read it before you go on. It'll just take a minute.

===============

Assholes and Kickers can be fun and exciting. This is especially so when you think they might be assholes on your behalf, and kick the kinds of people and institutions you think are keeping you down ... or that just annoy the hell out of you on a day to day basis. However, disabled people who might be inclined to join "Team Kicking" on November 8 should remember something. Disabled people, in particular, never, ever benefit when Kickers are in charge. Also, Assholes like to befriend a disabled person now and then, and that can feel really swell, but they don't stay our friends for very long.

Donald Trump is both an Asshole and a Kicker, in a way that few other Republicans have been. Mitt Romney and John McCain, (to name just the last two nominees), had certain ideologies and prejudices, and advocated policies that might have done us some harm, but they were by no means either Assholes or Kickers. That would have been hard for me to admit four or eight years ago, but it's pretty obvious when Donald Trump is here to demonstrate what an Asshole and a Kicker really is.

What about Hillary? Well, what about Hillary?

First, a word about what it means to “mean well."

In social justice circles, you say someone “means well” or is “well-intentioned” when they are privileged people who think they are awesome, while having no idea of how wrong and problematic they actually are. It’s faint praise at best, at worst an insult. There's also the more concrete, practical truth that good intentions aren’t worth much if real-life outcomes are bad. This is one of the key concepts of progressive social justice … it doesn’t matter what you meant to say or do. What really matters is the results.

That said, right now is an excellent time to remember that good intentions are better than bad intentions.

Hillary Clinton almost certainly means well, even if we dispute whether she can succeed in making “well” happen. She means well, while Trump clearly does not. Donald Trump almost certainly does not mean well, except maybe for himself, and maybe for some definition of "regular Americans" he has in his head ... a definition that also happens to shift quite a bit when it suits him, especially when he's provoked.

Clinton wants to make things better for people, and yes, in particular, for people on Team Kicked, including people with disabilities. If she loses her way in this, we can use her good intentions to steer her back on course.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, doesn’t even nominally care about making life better for disabled people. I'm not sure he wants to hurt us exactly, but he's made it clear we barely exist in his system of priorities. And he enjoys being a world-class Kicker. He’s proud of it. It’s part of his brand.

For about a minute, some disabled people might feel like Trump is in touch with their own resentments … with their own beefs about who gets to have nice things, who gets cut some slack in society, who is and isn't a true, virtuous American. Trump himself might even believe now and then that he truly cares about disabled people. But what he obviously cares most about is singling out people who are noticeably different for ritual public shaming and, if he becomes President, maybe worse. When lists are drawn up for who's to be publicly shamed, humiliated, and scapegoated, guess who's always on them? People with disabilities.

Hillary Clinton is unlikely to change the fundamental dynamics of disability life in the United States. It’s unlikely anyone can in the space of one Presidency and what is probably going to be another divided Congress. But she’s also unlikely to victimize us or undermine the progress we have made so far. With a bit of political luck, and dogged activism on our part, Clinton might even help push our policy agenda forward a little.

I’m usually all about policy, myself. I’m not used to voting based on personality. If policy is your thing, too, check this side by side Trump and Clinton comparison put together by the American Association of People with Disabilities, based on both campaigns’ answers to a disability policy questionnaire. There’s plenty there to make a solid decision. I’m just saying, this is one of those times where it should be easy to decide even if you don’t know a thing about the intricacies of disability issues.

The political empowerment of disabled people I have witnessed through #CripTheVote and the campaign itself has been impressive and exciting. But despite the significant progress we’ve made in this year alone, disabled people are still … and maybe always will be … part of Team Kicked.

This is not the same as saying disabled people are helpless, or inherently weak, or even that we are all horribly oppressed. It is simply an acknowledgement of social reality. Disabled people are charter members of Team Kicked. That is simply true, even for those of us who are privileged in other ways, even those of us who are doing pretty well, individually, and even those of us who don't think of ourselves as part of any "disability community." We are all on Team Kicked. We don't get a choice about that.

We are part of Team Kicked whether we like it or not, whether we admit it or not. All other factors aside, Trump is Team Kicker. Clinton is Team Kicked.

We would be wise to vote accordingly.

Disability Blogger Link-Up

It’s linkup time!

If you are new to this, click here to see previous Disability Blogger Link-Ups. The idea is to share something you have written that's about disability in some way. Please be sure to link to the specific article or post, not the main page of the website it's on.

To make the links easier for visitors to identify, in the “Your name” blank, type the title of the article you are posting. In the "Your URL" blank, paste the URL address of the item. Like this:

Name = Title of your article.
Your URL = Link to your article.

Then click the "Enter" button. That's it! If you have any difficulty making it work, or any questions, feel free to email me at: apulrang@icloud.com

This Link-Up will close at Midnight Eastern on Sunday. The next Disability Blogger Link-Up will start Friday, November 11, 2016.

Throwback Thursday: Bullying

I promise, I'll get back to at least semi regular blog posts soon ... probably after the Election. In the meantime, here's a post from two years ago today:

Bullying
October 27, 2014

I think I have a little more insight into why I didn't suffer any (much?) bullying in school. I think it had something to do with being agreeable and undemanding 99% of the time. That sounds like a humble brag, and even a bit of victim blaming of people who do experience bullying. But being easygoing all the time as a disabled kid has a price, too. I'm not sure I would trade the experience for a different path, but I probably sacrificed a bit of integrity and maybe some opportunities never pursued so I could stay "a pleasure to have in class."

As for the school, I give it due credit ... especially my fellow students. On the other hand, it's probably easier to be inclusive when the person in question doesn't actually pose much more than a visual challenge.

Weekly Reading List

It's all about perspective this week ...

Why Disability Simulations Don't Always Help You Understand A Disability, From Someone Who Actually Has One
Wendy Lu, Bustle - October 21, 2016

Disability simulations are kind of a perfect model for disability-related ideas that well-meaning people have polar opposite feelings about. The people who like disability simulations seem to love them and think they're brilliant, while people who don't like them don't just not like them, they are offended by them. I suspect that most of the proponents of disability simulations are non-disabled, and most people offended by them are disabled. However, I also have the feeling that if a rigorous poll could ever be taken on the question, it might be a 50/50 question among disabled people. I have met many wheelchair users who relished the idea of putting non-disabled people in chairs and challenging them to navigate a neighborhood full of barriers. I think the main difference has to do with this question of identity. If you view disability as simply a practical, technical matter, you want non-disabled people to understand the practicalities first hand. If you view disability as a social identity, trying on your identity for a few minutes feels trivializing, and not worth a few shallow insights into the problems of accessibility that the non-disabled person might get from the experience. This difference over simulations might, in fact, be an excellent way to introduce people to these two views of disability ... the practical and the social.

Why Using a Wheelchair Is the Opposite of Giving Up
Kathleen Downs, Parenting Special Needs Magazine - Date unknown

The other problem with disability simulations ... my main objection in fact ... is that they are just as likely to make stigma worse as they are to foster empathy and understanding. You want people spending a day in a wheelchair to notice how the world is full of unnecessary barriers, but instead they often end up thinking how terrible it is to "be in a wheelchair." This article is written mainly for parents of kids with disabilities, but it beautifully refutes the common idea that using a wheelchair is a bad, unhappy thing, underscoring that a wheelchair means freedom and mobility for someone with a mobility disability. Again, like the simulation issue, this is also partly a matter of perspective. I know wheelchair users who mainly see their wheelchairs as a negative, because they compare it to walking, or because their wheelchair is faulty or ill-fitted. So much depends on point of view.

I Don't Want to Be 'Inspiring'
John Altmann, New York Times - October 20, 2016

Smart Ass Cripple Inspires Youth with his Courage
Smart Ass Cripple - October 21, 2016

Even disabled peoples' feelings about being "inspiring" depend a little on perspective ... though I would say only a very little. It seems pretty obvious to me that if nothing else, being praised in that particular way disabled people are praised is inherently embarrassing and disconcerting. It continues to surprise me that this continually needs to be explained and justified to non-disabled people. It's true that there are a few disabled people who deliberately make it part of their mission in life to "inspire" people precisely through their disability. But it seems like most of these folks have some other agenda as well ... often either religious or money-making. It's also possible that the definition of the word "inspiring" is shifting, becoming hazier ... something closer to a generic variation on "awesome." Nevertheless, it should really only take a moment of honest reflection to see that it's not weird for most disabled people to shun being "inspiring." This should not be a controversial idea at all.

My non-verbal son communicates through ‘Hamilton’
David M. Perry, Washington Post - October 21, 2016

So, why then, is this article not "inspirational" in a bad way? Part of it is the source. David Perry is one of the most knowledgeable and sophisticated non-disabled thinkers and writers about disability today. If he shares a heartwarming tale of his son, you know he's got reasons other than to elicit cooing and tears. And he makes real points, which are relevant to how other non-verbal people are treated in society. Most of all, it's Perry's tone. I would call it "appreciative" rather than, say, "sentimental." I'm convinced that dislike of sentimentality is at least 50% of what drives disabled peoples' hatred of "inspiration porn." And there really is a qualitative difference between disability stories like this, that elicit nods of approval, and those that produce tears of sentimentality.