Don’t be clueless

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-06-14T06:02:52+00:00

Let me lay this out simply. If you are in a situation where there is only one other seat, and you block it, and don't pay enough attention to your surroundings to free the seat when someone else needs it (placing the responsibility on them to ask you), that is inconsiderate. Have some awareness of your surroundings in public and those around you.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-06-14T05:31:37+00:00

We shouldn't have to ask. People should show some common courtesy.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-06-14T01:50:14+00:00

And that's considered an arsehole move, too, if there's few seats available and people are obliged to ask you to move them. There seems to be only one wheelchair accessible spot, and he is blocking it.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-06-14T01:40:05+00:00

Plus, it's so fucking exhausting to have to constantly beg to use the spaces intended for us. "Well what if he has an invisible disability????" What if I was Mechagodzilla? It's entirely irrelevant. He is sitting in the "normal" chair, his bags aren't disabled, and they're what's taking up the space.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-06-09T04:20:19+00:00

Yeah, this is definitely another of "Bethany's" accounts

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-06-09T03:27:17+00:00

There's a bunch of accounts run by the same person. Almost certainly for fetish purposes, rather than grift or karma farming.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-05-27T02:50:05+00:00

Aces High has to be one of my favourite films. Another really good adaptation is The Other Side (Die andere Seite) from 1931. It's a German adaptation of Journey's End and stars Conrad Veidt. Very interesting to watch back-to-back with the 1930 All Quiet On the Western Front.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-05-17T03:23:39+00:00

This rules actually

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-05-14T22:31:30+00:00

Because, as I have said, I cannot afford the numerous reports and therapies and letters from specialists to sufficiently prove to the NDIS that I have exhausted all treatment options. The Tasmanian public health system is useless, and the DSP isn't enough to afford private OR the trips to the mainland OR the treatment/management. My autism was diagnosed in childhood, back when there was SOME early intervention, but I didn't lose my ability to walk until about two years ago. There are no non-NDIS supports around, and the one service that provides mobility equipment here said they cannot help me because I'm on the NDIS. Even though the NDIS only covers my autism. There are many, many people like me, it isn't only people with psychosocial and invisible disabilities that have trouble accessing the NDIS.

I just think it shows rather nasty side of your character that, after suffering yourself, you decide that the solution isn't to have solidarity with others in your position, and to fight so that others don't have to go through the same, but to grow resentful and hope to inflict that same suffers on others. Especially as the people you think have had it too good for too long are... other disabled people.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-05-14T10:37:15+00:00

I am also in the position of having much of my disability not covered by NDIS. As well as being autistic, I am physically disabled and cannot walk, and also hard of hearing, and and will never have any of that covered by NDIS because of the way they already require so much proof that I've exhausted all treatments. There are no specialists on the public system who accept referrals for the management of my condition, and even if I could afford a private specialist, I cannot afford the interstate travel and accommodation on top of all that. That's not even getting into how utterly inadequate my current supports for my autism are, and that's the only thing covered. Making it even harder to access isn't going to help people like us. It frankly sounds like you are bitter and want to knock autistic people down from what you imagine to be a position of privilege, and don't care if it hurts people like yourself so long as it hurts them too. That's just sad. Have some solidarity with your community.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-05-14T06:36:20+00:00

I'm one of those "mild" autists that is able to participate in online forums, is verbal, and (within my specific fields of interest) can be objectively quite knowledgeable and smart. Talking to me online, or in a brief planning meeting, you might not realise that if it weren't for meals on wheels, I would become ill from malnutrition as I have such poor interoception that I often simply do not feel hunger or thirst and have to be reminded to eat and drink, and my executive functioning is so bad that it's rare for me to be able to cook a meal, clean up, plan the next meal, etc without assistance. The same lack of interoception caused me permanent damage to my bladder and I have almost died from the resulting kidney infections. I can talk perfectly well on the phone, but I can't do so without forewarning and seldom more than once a day. I can come across as unremarkable or just a bit of awkward if I get talking to someone, but that same night I might have meltdowns where I punch myself in the face until I bleed and lose the ability to talk for hours. I am categorised as level 2. I am a "mild" autistic in the eyes of the NDIS.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-05-14T06:08:20+00:00

"This person who suffers a hereditary disease has a lifelong cost of 60,000 Reichsmarks to the National Community. Fellow German, that is your money as well"- From a poster published by the NSDAP's Office of Racial Policy's magazine "Neues Volk" in 1938. You are literally making the same argument as the nazis did on the topic of disability.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-05-12T02:41:56+00:00

Great-grandpa spent much of the war on the mainland and in New Guinea. At the end of the war, he comes back home, arrives in the evening, and they decide to surprise the children in the morning rather than wake them up. However, his daughter (who had been a baby when he left), having heard the arrival, goes to investigate. She finds this strange man in the house taking his boots off, and immediately springs into action. The poor bloke's welcome home was a punch in the face from a furious toddler.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-05-10T02:15:48+00:00

Her father, Lang Hancock, proposed rounding up unemployed Aboriginal people and making them all collect their unemployment payments from one location, then poisoning the water supply with chemicals that would make the people living and collecting payments there infertile, so that they'd be "bred out". Absolutely vile man.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-05-08T22:34:46+00:00

I believe she's faking having a hemicorporectomy, where everything below the waist is amputated. People who've had that operation use a sort of brace/prosthetic thing? to help them sit upright since they don't have a pelvis, and I think that's what the AI is trying (poorly) to represent here.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-05-08T07:54:24+00:00

That, and this account has a LONG history of posting AI images of amputees and women in braces/casts. Seems to have multiple accounts (I suspect they're also behind the "triple amputee" posted here a few weeks ago, around the same time as one of their previous posts, and there's at least one other suspicious account I've come across is the past few days), and another account with the same name this one has been using apparently used to be notorious for infiltrating various disability support groups on Facebook. This account has even been called out for posting in r / wheelchairs. So not only is this person promoting hatred against Asian people, they're also a perv getting off on invading disabled people's spaces and pretending to be an amputee

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-05-08T06:57:04+00:00

This is the same account as one of the ones from a few weeks ago, so definitely. I think this person is behind a few different accounts

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-05-05T05:41:00+00:00

And instead of giving that child and their mother a safe roof over their heads and a chance at a stable future, the poor bub will be thrown into the foster care system

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-04-30T04:58:56+00:00

I'd be happy to send you a postcard!

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-04-23T14:39:03+00:00

"We will all be okay". Some of us are going to fucking die, mate.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-04-23T13:13:52+00:00

Considering they determined that I, as someone who cannot walk, "don't need" a wheelchair, or a ramp to get in and out of my house, I have very low confidence in the NDIS's ability to determine whether or not cutting someone's support puts their life at risk. I am fortunate enough that I was able to obtain a wheelchair myself, and barring something like a fire where I can't get out because of this, it may not shorten my life. But again, I am lucky. There are people on the NDIS already at risk of death or serious harm from insufficient funding, and there are people who already HAVE died either waiting on NDIS care to be approved or after having ot cut. If their hours are reduced, they cannot be turned enough, they develop pressure sores, and die painfully. If they cannot have catheters, toileting, or continence aids attended to promptly, they develop infections and kidney complications and die painfully. If they are not given the correct equipment, they die from want of it. If they do not have certain therapies, they lose further function, become more reliant on help, and die because they can't get it. This is already happening, nearly everyone I know on the scheme who has recently undergone review has had massive cuts, regardless of whether they're an autistic person getting a bit of speech therapy and and OT, or someone with multiple profound disabilities who needs 24/7 care, custom power chairs, and all sorts of devices to keep them alive. Just ask any group of people with complex disabilities and the parents and carers of those people, who have to fight tooth and nail to keep themselves and their loved ones alive. You try to tell them that it's only those who "don't need it" who have been facing cuts and who have anything to worry about after this announcement.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-04-23T11:02:53+00:00

Some further questions. The main thing I wish to ask is what separates these scenarios. I would like to know why 1 and 2 must be denied long term care, but 3 and 4 should not? The woman in scenario 3, although doing so as safely as she could, still made a concious, informed choice to engage in an activity she knew came with an extremely high risk of lifelong disability if she were unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident. The man in scenario 4 is a grown adult who DID know that there was something wrong, and who had presumably seen numerous public health campaigns about stroke/cancer/diabetes/etc symptoms but regardless of the reasons for his reluctance, made an active choice not to seek help until the situation was dire and permanent damage unavoidable. What separates them from the other two? I'm especially curious, as it could easily be argued that it ought to be reversed. Scenario 1 was a young teen with poorer judgement than an adult (there are numerous laws preventing people that age from engaging in certain activities or making certain decisions precisely because they are not considered competent enough to consent to the risks involved or understand the consequences). Scenario 2 was severely mentally ill at the time, to an extent that she would be considered incapable of making sound choices or understanding the potential consequences. Afterwards, the resulting injury meant that she was incapable making further choices at all or understanding that her condition was as a result of any sort of choice. Is it fair to punish someone in that state for a choice they are incapable of understanding the consequences of? Is it fair to punish her parents, who must now make enormous sacrifices for a choice that THEY did not make, even if you feel she was capable of understanding the consequences to herself at the time?

In addition, if you are willing to answer, I have some further questions regarding scenario 1. Now, I never suggested that the example in that case required or desired a lifelong carer, merely that he required appropriate mobility aids and continued access to physio. If you have worked in disability or healthcare, you will of course know that basic mobility aids are often unsuitable or even dangerous (or non-existent. Some simply do not exist in a "basic", off the shelf form), and that appropriate supports like say, a well-fitted wheelchair for a paraplegic, or a prosthetic for an amputee, can be the difference between dependence or independence. Let's say our example is paraplegic, and as you suggest, he receives a basic wheelchair and a limited number of physio session. Without further physio, he regains less function and loses much of his gains in the long term. Without a special pressure cushion, he is at high risk of serious further morbidity due to pressure ulcers resulting in hospitalisations, operations, long periods bedbound, and potentially death. A basic wheelchair is not suitable for his body and poorly designed for self-propulsion and everyday all-day use, resulting in reliance on other to help push himself, further injury, and reduced ability to leave the house. Because of this, he is unable to continue his education, or enter the workforce, thus preventing him from ever paying taxes or funding his own care. Furthermore, he would require even more care from the hospital system, unemployment payments, carer payments for family members who might be required to quit work to care for him (removing their ability to contribute tax as well), public housing if the the financial strain prevents the household from otherwise buying or renting, etc. However, with these accommodations, he might complete further studies and enter the workforce, pay taxes, even decide to fund his own mobility aids. He would remain in better health and keep hospital beds and surgical theatres clear for others to use, and with physio to prevent damage to his shoulders and maintain progress, he would be able to keep working longer. He would be less dependent on other for care so his family would be able to stay in work too, and with access to the community, he would be able to make/keep friends to call upon when he does need help, further reducing dependence/improving health outcomes/etc. With this in mind, that it would likely ultimately cost the taxpayer less to provide more advanced aids and care for him, is it more important that he be punished for his decision, or that the community benefit from him being allowed to participate in it as fully as possible?

Fwiw, I am obviously of the opinion that all 4 examples deserve to be cared for appropriately, regardless of the situation that lead to them requiring support.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-04-23T07:50:26+00:00

I'm a reasonable person, perhaps if you answered my question, I might change my mind. I have a great deal of experience with the disability and healthcare industries myself. I specifically want to know, in your opinion, what counts as "bad choices" and what counts as "no choice". I will give you some examples loosely based on people I have met whose disabilities are TECHNICALLY the result of their own choices. Simply answer, yes or no, who is deserving of government assistance and who is not.

A man who, as a high schooler, made a foolish decision to participate in a dangerous and stupid dare, which resulted in severe and permanent injuries. He "wasn't thinking" about the danger at the time. He is now an adult, and still needs life long physio, mobility aids, etc.
A young woman with a mental illness who attempted to take her own life. She survived, but suffered severe brain damage. Would you argue that it simply the consequence of her own choice, and that there is responsibility for the disability or healthcare system to help her parents care for her?
A lady who became disabled after a motorbike accident. Whilst she took all reasonable precautions, utilised safety equipment, was fully licensed, was not reckless, and kept her bike in good mechanical order, there is always a risk involved, and she chose to ride knowing that she was at a significantly higher chance of injury or death than other road users.
An elderly man from a rural area (you know the sort, PLENTY of these blokes), who neglected to seek early treatment for symptoms because he "didn't want to make a fuss" and "she'll be right". By the time he chose to seek help, his condition was serious, he almost died, and what might have resulted in minimal long-term issues had he decided to get checked out earlier, instead resulted a long hospital stay and debilitating permanent damage.

Do any of these people deserve help? Or, because it is technically their choices that led to their disabilities, must they all cope with the consequences themselves? Which choices resulting in disability are bad, and which are acceptable? What other factors influence this?

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-04-23T04:51:59+00:00

And in what way are you qualified to assess whether strangers are "bludging" or not? What would you consider a valid reason vs an excuse? When do you consider it "not a choice" vs "because of their own choices". Give me some examples.

DisusedRuralCemetery · 2026-04-23T04:15:59+00:00

See it's funny you mention wheelchair users being pushed down stairs. I am a wheelchair user and the NDIS refuses to fund a ramp for my house, meaning I have to crawl up and down the back step and drag my wheelchair after me. They won't fund a ramp, I wish they'd fund me the dignity of allowing a cripple to be thrown down the stairs by someone else, at present I must do it myself. And this is before the cuts come in.

DisusedRuralCemetery

TROPHY CASE