Split Is Fetterman's aphasia relevant to his being a Senator?

[Ford]

Of course you are implying that Fetterman’s language processing deficit (assuming he really has one) will impair his ability to function as a senator! You have been saying and implying this again and again.

No. I directly claimed the following:

Being able to process and understand the speech of others is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator.

I said nothing about how long it would take or if Fetterman could recover
I did not make a judgment about how much accommodations could mitigate the effect
I did not say Fetterman would be unable to function as a Senator or should not have been voted in.

So your answer to the (split) OP question would be a definitive "no." His aphasia does not disqualify him. So what's the problem?

That something does not 'disqualify' you does not mean it does not affect you negatively, or does not make your job harder, or does not make other people's jobs harder.

More to the point, when this was split into a separate thread, you could have saved everyone a lot of time by saying "no, it does not disqualify him."

I never said it did. Am I to anticipate every single false position people are going to impute to me and pre-emptively deny them?

Not by doing the Seinfeld "not that there's anything wrong with that, but..." thing, but making yourself clear and not adding any qualifiers...end of discussion. Right?

Instead, you keep pointing out that he has a "cognitive disorder" or "cognitive deficit" as if it is somehow the most important thing about him, and thus dragging out the discussion.

I am correcting the false statements people have made about me. I am allowed to defend against false statements, am I not?

He CAN "process and understand the speech of others" if there is an accommodation made for his (temporary) health issue. Problem solved, right?

I don't know. I don't know what accommodations the US Senate provides and how difficult and different that environment will be. Certainly I have been told that apparently nobody listens to anything people say in the Senate anyway so there's no problem there (well that's a problem but of an entirely different nature). But there are many unknowns as well.

I already regret jumping into this one.

Maybe you wouldn't have "false statements" made about you if you'd made it clear that you have no problems whatsoever with Fetterman being elected to the Senate and serving in the office.

Unless of course you DO have a problem. It appears - by the last part of your answer here - that you do in fact have a problem with him serving.

If you don't, then why are we even talking about this?

 

[Metaphor]

I was not aware that he had been using closed captioning in interviews, but I see that he has. So you were right about that. However, this is no worse than someone who is deaf requiring the same, and being deaf is not a disqualification for being a senator.

Can you please stop implying I implied that this 'disqualified' Fetterman. I didn't. But even if you think I did, even if I did unknowingly make that implication, I am telling you, and have already told you, I do not believe that this 'disqualifies' a Senator.

I did not say that you accused Fetterman of being deaf.

...what? When did I say you accused me of claiming Fetterman was deaf?

What?

Read what I actually wrote. And you should really stop trying to pretend that you did not question Fetterman’s fitness to do his job because of his speech comprehension disability.

Of course I questioned his fitness!! Comprehending the speech of others is an important ability for a Senator!! Questioning it does not mean I have come to the conclusion he is 'disqualified' or even that anybody made the wrong choice. It seems to me anybody would admit that Fetterman without the speech comprehension disorder would be a better scenario for the Senate than Fetterman with the speech comprehension disorder.

That’s why the thread title is now about his qualifications (in the sense of “fitness”) to do his job as a senator. You didn’t choose the thread title, but it is no accident that others interpret your posts in the same way I do.

It is certainly no accident.

The disability that you are complaining about is entirely auditory, so, even if it were permanent, it would not render him unfit for office.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'entirely auditory'; I believe you mean 'applies to understanding spoken language and does not apply to understanding written language'.

That’s right. What else do you think “auditory” could mean? He requested closed captioning because his difficulty only affects his auditory comprehension.

Audition is the power of hearing or listening. Somebody could have interpreted your statement to mean the problem was sensory. I clarified, for the avoidance of doubt.

Evidently, I'm to be attacked for that too.

Technically, it is true that Fetterman’s disability is more like dyslexia than deafness, but why do you think that is significant? Roughly 15% of the population is dyslexic, and a fair number of officeholders almost certainly are. That’s just a reading/writing disorder, not an auditory one. Fetterman is no more unfit for office than someone with a purely sensory deficit such as deafness. Why would you think otherwise?

I don't know how many officeholders are dyslexic, but I wager it makes their jobs significantly more difficult than it would be if they were not dyslexic. You appear to want me to say that something that does not rule someone out of office should not play any part in assessing their fitness for it.

All I can say is, wow! All of that just to question the honesty and integrity of Fetterman’s physician.

All of what? I did not question the honesty and integrity of Fetterman's physician, as you falsely accuse me of. I said it was a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest does not accuse anybody of anything. A judge recusing herself because it is her cousin on trial is doing so because it is a conflict of interest, not because she is questioning her own honesty and integrity.

Please stop accusing me of things you've manufactured from whole cloth.

I don’t know what the laws are concerning campaign contributions and medical ethics in Australia and don’t really care, but this kind of argument strikes me as scraping the bottom of the barrel to find any excuse to question Fetterman’s fitness for office. I don’t care what the physician’s politics were or whether he donated to his patient’s campaign. I have every reason to assume that he believed what he wrote.

I see you did not acknowledge you were wrong about Chen's donations, but now you appear to be accusing me of doing something improper by pointing out the conflict of interest.

As a linguist, I can tell you that there is a relationship between articulation and auditory discrimination, and that is one of the reasons that I do not treat auditory impairment as completely distinct from articulatory impairment. I would not expect you to know about those issues, and that has very little to do with our dispute here. There is nothing about Fetterman’s auditory difficulty that is significantly different from difficulties that might be experienced by someone who is hard of hearing. He is still completely fit for public office, just as his doctor wrote in his letter.

That is not what the doctor wrote.

 

[Metaphor]

We are not discussing a candidate standing for election in Australia, so “Australia standards” are irrelevant.

I gave Copernicus my experience and perspective.

There is no need to justify the irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant. I was having a conversation with Copernicus and I was explaining to him how he was wrong about the facts of Chen's actions. I am uninterested in your perception of whether Chen's letter represents a conflict of interest.

Your explanation tested on your interpretation of an irrelevant standard. No one in the USA is interested in the Australian standards applied in the USA.

Yes, you already said.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course you are implying that Fetterman’s language processing deficit (assuming he really has one) will impair his ability to function as a senator! You have been saying and implying this again and again.

No. I directly claimed the following:

Being able to process and understand the speech of others is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator.

I said nothing about how long it would take or if Fetterman could recover
I did not make a judgment about how much accommodations could mitigate the effect
I did not say Fetterman would be unable to function as a Senator or should not have been voted in.

So your answer to the (split) OP question would be a definitive "no." His aphasia does not disqualify him. So what's the problem?

That something does not 'disqualify' you does not mean it does not affect you negatively, or does not make your job harder, or does not make other people's jobs harder.

More to the point, when this was split into a separate thread, you could have saved everyone a lot of time by saying "no, it does not disqualify him."

I never said it did. Am I to anticipate every single false position people are going to impute to me and pre-emptively deny them?

Not by doing the Seinfeld "not that there's anything wrong with that, but..." thing, but making yourself clear and not adding any qualifiers...end of discussion. Right?

Instead, you keep pointing out that he has a "cognitive disorder" or "cognitive deficit" as if it is somehow the most important thing about him, and thus dragging out the discussion.

I am correcting the false statements people have made about me. I am allowed to defend against false statements, am I not?

He CAN "process and understand the speech of others" if there is an accommodation made for his (temporary) health issue. Problem solved, right?

I don't know. I don't know what accommodations the US Senate provides and how difficult and different that environment will be. Certainly I have been told that apparently nobody listens to anything people say in the Senate anyway so there's no problem there (well that's a problem but of an entirely different nature). But there are many unknowns as well.

I already regret jumping into this one.

Maybe you wouldn't have "false statements" made about you if you'd made it clear that you have no problems whatsoever with Fetterman being elected to the Senate and serving in the office.

Unless of course you DO have a problem. It appears - by the last part of your answer here - that you do in fact have a problem with him serving.

If you don't, then why are we even talking about this?

I am baffled by your demands.

What do you consider having a 'problem' with somebody serving? Do all the people who didn't vote for Fetterman have a 'problem' with him serving, just because they would have preferred someone else was serving? Or is it a problem only if they decided not to vote for him because part of their calculus was the detrimental aspect of his speech processing disorder?

Fetterman has cleared every hurdle (constitutional and legal) to serve as a Senator (including the most important one of course, being elected). I don't have a 'problem' with duly-elected politicians serving office.

 

[Jarhyn]

Some extreme fuss has been made over my calling his disorder a 'cognitive deficit', but I still cannot understand why. The disability is obviously not sensory--he is not deaf or hard of hearing--the problem is in his brain.

It IS much like being deaf though. It's not like his brain doesn't work, it's just that certain input channels are slow or less useful for him.

It's like... Having a bad audio capture device, instead of having a bad microphone. Either way the audio in is not useful, but it only affects the audio in.

The fact is, I'm not good at following audio either.

It's not disqualifying, and in many ways it's beneficial to have someone who only consumes the proceedings in text format.

It makes it far more likely that someone will catch something said with words that don't match the tone, or said with more complications than are warranted in any attempt to tell the truth, weasel words.

It's a different perspective, an atypical focus on the information presented in a setting, and that's important.

It's just so fucking stupid that anyone would argue against having different perspectives present.

It's no different than someone being partially deaf, merely by a different mechanism.

As long as it's not about an inability to think and just an inability to interpret ONE format of input, it should not matter and those who claim it should are ableist.

 

[Ford]

Fetterman has cleared every hurdle (constitutional and legal) to serve as a Senator (including the most important one of course, being elected). I don't have a 'problem' with duly-elected politicians serving office.

So your problem isn't his aphasia, or his "cognitive deficit" at all.

You're just mad he beat Dr. Oz. Oh, I'm sorry, I should turn that into a question so you won't accuse me of putting words into your mouth and will yet still refuse to provide a simple answer, thus dragging on the thread.

Are you just mad he beat Dr. Oz?

Because if you are, then - again - this whole discussion would have been over a long time ago. You could have said - for example and I'm totally not accusing you of false statements - "I'm just mad that a Democrat won." You could have left his stroke out of it entirely. "Hey, I don't like the guy." Or "I would have preferred a Republican." Or "dammit I was told there'd be a red wave."

I'm not making "demands." I'm just asking you to be clear about your reasons for - apparently - not being happy about Fetterman winning.

 

[Metaphor]

Fetterman has cleared every hurdle (constitutional and legal) to serve as a Senator (including the most important one of course, being elected). I don't have a 'problem' with duly-elected politicians serving office.

So your problem isn't his aphasia, or his "cognitive deficit" at all.

You're just mad he beat Dr. Oz. Oh, I'm sorry, I should turn that into a question so you won't accuse me of putting words into your mouth and will yet still refuse to provide a simple answer, thus dragging on the thread.

Are you just mad he beat Dr. Oz?

No.

 

[Ford]

Fetterman has cleared every hurdle (constitutional and legal) to serve as a Senator (including the most important one of course, being elected). I don't have a 'problem' with duly-elected politicians serving office.

So your problem isn't his aphasia, or his "cognitive deficit" at all.

You're just mad he beat Dr. Oz. Oh, I'm sorry, I should turn that into a question so you won't accuse me of putting words into your mouth and will yet still refuse to provide a simple answer, thus dragging on the thread.

Are you just mad he beat Dr. Oz?

No.

So what is your issue? Why are we even talking about this?

 

[Metaphor]

Fetterman has cleared every hurdle (constitutional and legal) to serve as a Senator (including the most important one of course, being elected). I don't have a 'problem' with duly-elected politicians serving office.

So your problem isn't his aphasia, or his "cognitive deficit" at all.

You're just mad he beat Dr. Oz. Oh, I'm sorry, I should turn that into a question so you won't accuse me of putting words into your mouth and will yet still refuse to provide a simple answer, thus dragging on the thread.

Are you just mad he beat Dr. Oz?

No.

So what is your issue? Why are we even talking about this?

I don't know why you 'jumped in'.

Back ten thousand posts ago, I challenged a ridiculous assertion from blastula that Fetterman's speech processing disorder was 'irrelevant' to his role in the Senate.

I challenged it because it was ridiculous, and my internal mental process was something like "I wonder if anyone will challenge this ridiculous statement, or will they just let it ride because Fetterman is in their ideological camp? I think I'll challenge it. It seems like low hanging fruit and something that nobody could seriously defend".

Evidently, I misjudged what people will defend when partisanship motivates them.

 

[Ford]

Fetterman has cleared every hurdle (constitutional and legal) to serve as a Senator (including the most important one of course, being elected). I don't have a 'problem' with duly-elected politicians serving office.

So your problem isn't his aphasia, or his "cognitive deficit" at all.

You're just mad he beat Dr. Oz. Oh, I'm sorry, I should turn that into a question so you won't accuse me of putting words into your mouth and will yet still refuse to provide a simple answer, thus dragging on the thread.

Are you just mad he beat Dr. Oz?

No.

So what is your issue? Why are we even talking about this?

Back ten thousand posts ago, I challenged a ridiculous assertion from blastula that Fetterman's speech processing disorder was 'irrelevant' to his role in the Senate.

So it is "relevant," but in no way disqualifies him from serving. His speech processing disorder does not now and will not affect his job performance, but it is also relevant to his role in the Senate.

How so? How is it relevant if it affects nothing?

 

[Metaphor]

Fetterman has cleared every hurdle (constitutional and legal) to serve as a Senator (including the most important one of course, being elected). I don't have a 'problem' with duly-elected politicians serving office.

So your problem isn't his aphasia, or his "cognitive deficit" at all.

You're just mad he beat Dr. Oz. Oh, I'm sorry, I should turn that into a question so you won't accuse me of putting words into your mouth and will yet still refuse to provide a simple answer, thus dragging on the thread.

Are you just mad he beat Dr. Oz?

No.

So what is your issue? Why are we even talking about this?

Back ten thousand posts ago, I challenged a ridiculous assertion from blastula that Fetterman's speech processing disorder was 'irrelevant' to his role in the Senate.

So it is "relevant," but in no way disqualifies him from serving. His speech processing disorder does not now and will not affect his job performance, but it is also relevant to his role in the Senate.

How so? How is it relevant if it affects nothing?

Ford, I cannot follow your reasoning. Did Trump's low intelligence "disqualify" him from serving? No. Is it relevant? Yes.

Being unable to comprehend other's speech is relevant to the job of a Senator. It won't have "no effect." In fact, it will make Fetterman's job quite a bit harder, and harder for those around him as well.

 

[ZiprHead]

Some extreme fuss has been made over my calling his disorder a 'cognitive deficit', but I still cannot understand why. The disability is obviously not sensory--he is not deaf or hard of hearing--the problem is in his brain.

It IS much like being deaf though. It's not like his brain doesn't work, it's just that certain input channels are slow or less useful for him.

It's like... Having a bad audio capture device, instead of having a bad microphone. Either way the audio in is not useful, but it only affects the audio in.

The fact is, I'm not good at following audio either.

It's not disqualifying, and in many ways it's beneficial to have someone who only consumes the proceedings in text format.

It makes it far more likely that someone will catch something said with words that don't match the tone, or said with more complications than are warranted in any attempt to tell the truth, weasel words.

It's a different perspective, an atypical focus on the information presented in a setting, and that's important.

It's just so fucking stupid that anyone would argue against having different perspectives present.

It's no different than someone being partially deaf, merely by a different mechanism.

As long as it's not about an inability to think and just an inability to interpret ONE format of input, it should not matter and those who claim it should are ableist.

My eye roll was over this statement by Metaphor, "but I still cannot understand why."

 

[steve_bank]

The fact that Herschel Walker who appears to be a goofy ignorant inarticulate person made it a close race obviously shows mental and intellectual capacity is not a requirement to get elected.

His two main qualification were being a lackey selected by Trump and beng black.

 

[Ford]

Fetterman has cleared every hurdle (constitutional and legal) to serve as a Senator (including the most important one of course, being elected). I don't have a 'problem' with duly-elected politicians serving office.

So your problem isn't his aphasia, or his "cognitive deficit" at all.

You're just mad he beat Dr. Oz. Oh, I'm sorry, I should turn that into a question so you won't accuse me of putting words into your mouth and will yet still refuse to provide a simple answer, thus dragging on the thread.

Are you just mad he beat Dr. Oz?

No.

So what is your issue? Why are we even talking about this?

Back ten thousand posts ago, I challenged a ridiculous assertion from blastula that Fetterman's speech processing disorder was 'irrelevant' to his role in the Senate.

So it is "relevant," but in no way disqualifies him from serving. His speech processing disorder does not now and will not affect his job performance, but it is also relevant to his role in the Senate.

How so? How is it relevant if it affects nothing?

Being unable to comprehend other's speech is relevant to the job of a Senator. It won't have "no effect." In fact, it will make Fetterman's job quite a bit harder, and harder for those around him as well.

So if Fetterman was paralyzed from the waist down in an accident, it would have an effect. It would make his job quite a bit harder, as he would have to take extra time to roll down the hall to the Senate chamber. It would be harder because he'd have to have a special spot to park his wheelchair. It would take him more time to get his wheelchair to the podium...hell, he'd probably have to have a special podium. Then he'd need extra time to roll back to his "seat," which of course would have to accommodate his disability as well. That would cost not just time, but money. His office might have to be modified as well to accommodate the chair. He might need a staff member to help get into a car. He'd need a driver or a handicapped able vehicle he could drive, which would also cost money.

Being paralyzed would make his job quite a bit harder, and harder for those around him as well.

Remind me...were you this upset about Madison Cawthorne's permanent disability?

 

[laughing dog]

The fact that Herschel Walker who appears to be a goofy ignorant inarticulate person made it a close race obviously shows mental and intellectual capacity is not a requirement to get elected.

His two main qualification were being a lackey selected by Trump and beng black.

And being a football star in Georgia.

 

[Metaphor]

Fetterman has cleared every hurdle (constitutional and legal) to serve as a Senator (including the most important one of course, being elected). I don't have a 'problem' with duly-elected politicians serving office.

So your problem isn't his aphasia, or his "cognitive deficit" at all.

You're just mad he beat Dr. Oz. Oh, I'm sorry, I should turn that into a question so you won't accuse me of putting words into your mouth and will yet still refuse to provide a simple answer, thus dragging on the thread.

Are you just mad he beat Dr. Oz?

No.

So what is your issue? Why are we even talking about this?

Back ten thousand posts ago, I challenged a ridiculous assertion from blastula that Fetterman's speech processing disorder was 'irrelevant' to his role in the Senate.

So it is "relevant," but in no way disqualifies him from serving. His speech processing disorder does not now and will not affect his job performance, but it is also relevant to his role in the Senate.

How so? How is it relevant if it affects nothing?

Being unable to comprehend other's speech is relevant to the job of a Senator. It won't have "no effect." In fact, it will make Fetterman's job quite a bit harder, and harder for those around him as well.

So if Fetterman was paralyzed from the waist down in an accident, it would have an effect. It would make his job quite a bit harder, as he would have to take extra time to roll down the hall to the Senate chamber. It would be harder because he'd have to have a special spot to park his wheelchair. It would take him more time to get his wheelchair to the podium...hell, he'd probably have to have a special podium. Then he'd need extra time to roll back to his "seat," which of course would have to accommodate his disability as well. That would cost not just time, but money. His office might have to be modified as well to accommodate the chair. He might need a staff member to help get into a car. He'd need a driver or a handicapped able vehicle he could drive, which would also cost money.

Being paralyzed would make his job quite a bit harder, and harder for those around him as well.

Right.

Remind me...were you this upset about Madison Cawthorne's permanent disability?

Upset? I'm upset in a general sense when anybody has a disability. Or are you asking me if I'm upset that he ran for office? What makes you think I'd be upset about that?

 

[Ford]

Fetterman has cleared every hurdle (constitutional and legal) to serve as a Senator (including the most important one of course, being elected). I don't have a 'problem' with duly-elected politicians serving office.

So your problem isn't his aphasia, or his "cognitive deficit" at all.

You're just mad he beat Dr. Oz. Oh, I'm sorry, I should turn that into a question so you won't accuse me of putting words into your mouth and will yet still refuse to provide a simple answer, thus dragging on the thread.

Are you just mad he beat Dr. Oz?

No.

So what is your issue? Why are we even talking about this?

Back ten thousand posts ago, I challenged a ridiculous assertion from blastula that Fetterman's speech processing disorder was 'irrelevant' to his role in the Senate.

So it is "relevant," but in no way disqualifies him from serving. His speech processing disorder does not now and will not affect his job performance, but it is also relevant to his role in the Senate.

How so? How is it relevant if it affects nothing?

Being unable to comprehend other's speech is relevant to the job of a Senator. It won't have "no effect." In fact, it will make Fetterman's job quite a bit harder, and harder for those around him as well.

So if Fetterman was paralyzed from the waist down in an accident, it would have an effect. It would make his job quite a bit harder, as he would have to take extra time to roll down the hall to the Senate chamber. It would be harder because he'd have to have a special spot to park his wheelchair. It would take him more time to get his wheelchair to the podium...hell, he'd probably have to have a special podium. Then he'd need extra time to roll back to his "seat," which of course would have to accommodate his disability as well. That would cost not just time, but money. His office might have to be modified as well to accommodate the chair. He might need a staff member to help get into a car. He'd need a driver or a handicapped able vehicle he could drive, which would also cost money.

Being paralyzed would make his job quite a bit harder, and harder for those around him as well.

Right.

Remind me...were you this upset about Madison Cawthorne's permanent disability?

Upset? I'm upset in a general sense when anybody has a disability. Or are you asking me if I'm upset that he ran for office? What makes you think I'd be upset about that?

Because at every opportunity you've mentioned his "cognitive defect" and said something very much like "I'm not saying it disqualifies him from holding office, BUT...."

Yet I don't want to put words in your mouth. I want you to put your own words in your mouth and type them into this box. You would not have dragged this out for this long if you had no issue whatsoever with Fetterman. If it's just simple partisanship, then that's okay. If it has something to do with his disability, then that's not okay. Here is your opportunity to "explain it like I'm five."

 

[Metaphor]

Fetterman has cleared every hurdle (constitutional and legal) to serve as a Senator (including the most important one of course, being elected). I don't have a 'problem' with duly-elected politicians serving office.

So your problem isn't his aphasia, or his "cognitive deficit" at all.

You're just mad he beat Dr. Oz. Oh, I'm sorry, I should turn that into a question so you won't accuse me of putting words into your mouth and will yet still refuse to provide a simple answer, thus dragging on the thread.

Are you just mad he beat Dr. Oz?

No.

So what is your issue? Why are we even talking about this?

Back ten thousand posts ago, I challenged a ridiculous assertion from blastula that Fetterman's speech processing disorder was 'irrelevant' to his role in the Senate.

So it is "relevant," but in no way disqualifies him from serving. His speech processing disorder does not now and will not affect his job performance, but it is also relevant to his role in the Senate.

How so? How is it relevant if it affects nothing?

Being unable to comprehend other's speech is relevant to the job of a Senator. It won't have "no effect." In fact, it will make Fetterman's job quite a bit harder, and harder for those around him as well.

So if Fetterman was paralyzed from the waist down in an accident, it would have an effect. It would make his job quite a bit harder, as he would have to take extra time to roll down the hall to the Senate chamber. It would be harder because he'd have to have a special spot to park his wheelchair. It would take him more time to get his wheelchair to the podium...hell, he'd probably have to have a special podium. Then he'd need extra time to roll back to his "seat," which of course would have to accommodate his disability as well. That would cost not just time, but money. His office might have to be modified as well to accommodate the chair. He might need a staff member to help get into a car. He'd need a driver or a handicapped able vehicle he could drive, which would also cost money.

Being paralyzed would make his job quite a bit harder, and harder for those around him as well.

Right.

Remind me...were you this upset about Madison Cawthorne's permanent disability?

Upset? I'm upset in a general sense when anybody has a disability. Or are you asking me if I'm upset that he ran for office? What makes you think I'd be upset about that?

Because at every opportunity you've mentioned his "cognitive defect" and said something very much like "I'm not saying it disqualifies him from holding office, BUT...."

Yet I don't want to put words in your mouth. I want you to put your own words in your mouth and type them into this box.

I already said. I'm not upset.

If it's just simple partisanship, then that's okay. If it has something to do with his disability, then that's not okay.

If I were eligible to vote in the PA Senate, and, in deciding between Fetterman and Oz, Fetterman's speech processing deficit was one of the things that influenced my calculus, why would that be 'not okay'? What does 'not okay' mean to you? Be specific.

 

[Jarhyn]

Some extreme fuss has been made over my calling his disorder a 'cognitive deficit', but I still cannot understand why. The disability is obviously not sensory--he is not deaf or hard of hearing--the problem is in his brain.

It IS much like being deaf though. It's not like his brain doesn't work, it's just that certain input channels are slow or less useful for him.

It's like... Having a bad audio capture device, instead of having a bad microphone. Either way the audio in is not useful, but it only affects the audio in.

The fact is, I'm not good at following audio either.

It's not disqualifying, and in many ways it's beneficial to have someone who only consumes the proceedings in text format.

It makes it far more likely that someone will catch something said with words that don't match the tone, or said with more complications than are warranted in any attempt to tell the truth, weasel words.

It's a different perspective, an atypical focus on the information presented in a setting, and that's important.

It's just so fucking stupid that anyone would argue against having different perspectives present.

It's no different than someone being partially deaf, merely by a different mechanism.

As long as it's not about an inability to think and just an inability to interpret ONE format of input, it should not matter and those who claim it should are ableist.

My eye roll was over this statement by Metaphor, "but I still cannot understand why."

I see occasionally how evil people will criticize people unfairly because that's the only kind of criticism that exists to level against those who opposed them.

I have a feeling this is in that same general neighborhood of behavior.

 

[Ford]

If it's just simple partisanship, then that's okay. If it has something to do with his disability, then that's not okay.

If I were eligible to vote in the PA Senate, and, in deciding between Fetterman and Oz, Fetterman's speech processing deficit was one of the things that influenced my calculus, why would that be 'not okay'? What does 'not okay' mean to you? Be specific.

For the same reason that him being in a wheelchair influencing your "calculus" is not okay. Or someone being hearing impaired. You have a problem with him because he's got an (apparently temporary) disability.

I'm thinking of a couple people I know that you would probably write off. One reminds me very much of Fetterman. A big, intimidating guy with a bald head, a goatee, and tats up and down his arms. My friend has - due to a medial issue - a problem verbally communicating. It ended his career in crisis management, where he spent decades literally talking people off the edge. He is a very intelligent, absurdly caring man who will drop everything to help a stranger. He just has a "speech processing deficit" as the words come out of his mouth.

The other one is a co-worker. James is autistic. He has some physical and social quirks that can be jarring at first, but he's brilliant, and for the job we do his "disability" is actually an advantage. It is very technical work, and James catches things the rest of us would miss.

Specifically, you dismiss Fetterman out of hand because he is recovering from a stroke. The earlier accusation of you being "ableist" is pinpoint accurate. You've written him off because "welp, he's had a stroke, he's brain damaged." You keep saying it doesn't disqualify him, but it is painfully obvious you think it does.

You are bigoted against the disabled. Full stop.