Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RuneanPrincess t1_j8vbkux wrote

Reply to comment by KaisarDragon in “Humiliating”: Denver City Council candidate had to crawl on debate stage due to lack of wheelchair access by Sandstorm400

The theater being accessible is not the same as the stage being accessible which was the problem. It sounds like they didn't think of one of the participants needing accessibility.

97

roguetrick t1_j8vow39 wrote

Which is hilarious because he's the incumbent. They straight up didn't seem to care who was coming.

46

TacoMeat563 t1_j8x0x4s wrote

I don’t think they didn’t care, more sounds like it just didn’t come to mind. In their defense they probably have not had many wheelchair bound performers in the past, otherwise there would have been a solution in place

9

EquivalentInflation t1_j8x9um4 wrote

>I don’t think they didn’t care, more sounds like it just didn’t come to mind.

They literally got a call from his campaign asking if they were ADA compliant.

15

TacoMeat563 t1_j8y4tqi wrote

And their building literally is. The person answering the phone probably didn’t think through the stage aspect. I doubt the phone operator at the front desk was some political schill that wanted to embarrass anyone.

0

EquivalentInflation t1_j8y51y5 wrote

The stage is part of the building. They are not ADA compliant. You're arguing a completely different topic here. No one brought up political sabotage. This is a place of business not giving a shit about a man with disabilities.

3

Argikeraunos t1_j8xjppd wrote

>I don’t think they didn’t care, more sounds like it just didn’t come to mind.

Functionally no difference between either option. And, anyway, how would it not come to mind when the person in the wheelchair is the incumbent?

3

TacoMeat563 t1_j8y4z6m wrote

And you know all your representatives? And their disabilities and allergies I assume?

−2

Argikeraunos t1_j8y5gvx wrote

I suppose I would know them if I were organizing an event centered around them.

5

TacoMeat563 t1_j8ysop7 wrote

You’re organizing? Or their campaign booked your venue and you answered their questions correctly - in that the building itself is ADA compliant

−1

roguetrick t1_j8z53le wrote

>The Cleo Parker Robinson Dance school served as both the sponsor and venue for the debate, which was facilitated by the Denver Clerk and Recorder’s Office.

>Denver Clerk Paul López ... said his office reviews and approves applications for venues looking to host debates. Cleo Parker Robinson Dance’s application, obtained by The Denver Post through a public records request, indicated that its “theater is ADA accessible via our back entrance.”

I really don't know where folks are coming up with this shit. The venue is the one who applied to host the debate. The clerk didn't do due diligence in actually figuring out the application was appropriate, but you'd also figure the venue would actually try to understand who the hell is coming if they're the ones applying to host it.

2

vagfactory t1_j8xqowe wrote

No, everyone is against disabled people. There is no other way this could happen without malicious intent (according to reddit)

1

misdreavus79 t1_j8xu6q2 wrote

I always find it funny, in a "what a waste of time" way, when people obsess over intent.

Who gives a shit if there was malicious intent? Dude still had to crawl onto the stage, no?

2

vagfactory t1_j8xus3c wrote

Intent matters a ton, wtf are you smoking?

−2

misdreavus79 t1_j8y0xhc wrote

Not as much as you might think. If someone punches you in the nose, you're going to bleed regardless of whether it was an accident or not.

We can't read people's minds, but we can evaluate actions on their own merit. Not only that, but a lot of people hide behind intent in order to not change their behavior. If it's continually an accident, you can continually keep doing the thing over and over again!

But, again, the important part here: the intent of an action doesn't negate the action. And, in this particular case, whether they intended to have an inaccessible stage or not doesn't change the fact that the stage was inaccessible.

1

TacoMeat563 t1_j8y58z4 wrote

Your example is poop. No one gets “punched” in the face by accident. You can get “hit” in the face on accident. A “punch” is intended.

2

misdreavus79 t1_j8y6cxm wrote

The other thing I always find funny in a "what a waste of time" sense! When people become purposefully obtuse for no real reason!

You mean to tell me you can't come up with any example where someone could hit you by accident? Not a single one?

2

TacoMeat563 t1_j8ysalf wrote

Reread my comment, and then I guess go back to yours and change “hit” to “punch” to make me look like a dummy.

−1

vagfactory t1_j8yf7rt wrote

Oh, now I see where you are misunderstanding. Intent matters for what kind of reaction is expected/appropriate.

1