#MakeAbleistsUncomfortable if you think giving money to charities is more "legitimate" and "safe" than giving money directly to any of the many disabled people on here begging for our lives, for freedom from abuse, for needed mobility aids, etc, that's a problem.

And it is linked to the idea of fraudsters scamming the welfare system; that idea has created a deep association between disabled people desperately asking for help, and greedy fraudsters. It has deepened the already-extent idea of the "deserving" and the "undeserving", as well
as the idea that charities, organisations, the government, etc - in short, mostly non-disabled people - are qualified to decide who really deserves money and support, that they should be authorities over us and have the power to determine what we have access to and what we don't.
It's ok to support charities and organisations, so long as you've actually done your research (listening to what disabled people say about them) to ensure they're good. I'm not saying you have to give to people asking for money. I'm just saying that if you have some deeply held
conviction against giving money directly to people in need, just in case they're scamming you (which charities might also be doing, for the record), that's likely based in some ideas that have already been harmful to so many disabled people in so many ways.
Especially since giving money directly to folks in need is generally the best way to help them, as many of us can't access money from charities etc and so can only get the things we need if we're given money directly. It also gives us the most autonomy, to decide for ourselves
what we need most right now, rather than having to conform to often arbitrary and unhelpful rules about what we can spend money on if its allocated to us via a charity fund or the like.
There's just something so deeply suspicious about the way so many non-disabled people think giving to a charity/org run mostly by non-disabled people who will decide what we can do with the money is better and more legitimate than just giving us the money directly and
not making us jump through all the hoops of trying to get funding from charities and having to spend the money on what they deem important.

(Also the entire concept of charity is questionable; look into it.)
If you wanna support us...why not just support us? Directly, not via (probably non-disabled) intermediaries and authority figures who will decide if we deserve it?
The #MakeAbleistsUncomfortable hashtag is by
@MizTeeFranklin. As thanks for it, you can support her fundraiser here (CW: domestic violence, attempted kidnapping):
https://t.co/9gMpaN8bCp

More from Life

You May Also Like

A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.
So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.


The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.

This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.

The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."

This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.