We now have large media platforms claiming in complete seriousness that healing people of debilitating diseases is bad. Will we get one advocating for giving people disabilities they didn't already have?
Anything where the disability is a drawback, such as "we should help people more in X way even if it results in more people being hurt in Y way as a side effect" doesn't count. It must be a claim that hurting people against their will is good in-and-of itself. Parody doesn't count.
Related questions
"sometimes people like their disabilities" and "we should forcibly give people disabilities" seem worlds apart. on the other hand, law of large numbers.
An op-ed that claims that people who have a certain disability have an advantage at some task and should be put into positions where they can do that task, but doesn't explicitly say we should give more people that disability, wouldn't count, right? (EG "blind people are better musicians" vs "we should blind people so they play better music")
"sometimes people like their disabilities" and "we should forcibly give people disabilities" seem worlds apart. on the other hand, law of large numbers.
Sure, the article that inspired this article was arguing that we shouldn't have cured people who wanted to be cured.
An op-ed that claims that people who have a certain disability have an advantage at some task and should be put into positions where they can do that task, but doesn't explicitly say we should give more people that disability, wouldn't count, right? (EG "blind people are better musicians" vs "we should blind people so they play better music")
Correct. And even if it said something like "people should consider blinding themselves if they want to be better musicians" wouldn't count, as long as it's clear that the lack of ability to see is an unfortunate drawback and not the primary goal.
Yes as long as it's not a platform that will let basically anybody publish their opinion. They need to have standards.
Hmm, good question. I don't think so.