I think you had a point, about NSFW art.
Artistic censorship is a massive issue, and the dwindling places where it can be posted is a real issue. There's a reason that AO3 is such an important website - the same thing happening to NSFW art happened to slash fic. AO3 was created and now it protects NSFW/slash fic from being removed from the internet.
Art needs it's own site like AO3, set up for the purpose of archiving and protecting NSFW art, and not a social media site subject to the whims of advertisers and whoever else is paying the bills.
But using the Burrito Test outside it's context of the institutionalism of disabled people was a misstep.
I don't think you meant to be ableist, at all. I don't think you are. I just don't think you thought about it, or really understood what the Burrito Test means to the disabled community.
It's not an analogy, really, firstly. And it isn't just that it's a legitimate thing, that if you're -not allowed- to exercise your autonomy as an adult to just get up and make a burrito on a whim at 3am, or go to bed when you want, that you're not really living in a care home, you're in an institution, and your "care" is more abou the convenience of abled people than the quality of life of disabled people.
It's that its like a sample of what it is to live as a disabled person. It's like the experience of being disabled concentrated: infantilisation, humiliation, artificial limitations, lack of accessibility, being helpless and vulnerable to the people who are supposed to support us.
Disabled people are angry, and the Burrito Test is like a wound. You said you had a lot of people telling you graphic stories about what it was like for them to be forcibly instituted, so you can see how it's honeslty just a huge source of trauma for some people.
It was a mistake to try and make an equivalent analogy from the Burrito Test. And maybe you didn't know that, and it's unlikely that people who've never heard about it would know why it was a mistake, so you didn't start getting pushback until it came to the attention of the disabled community. And chronic pain causes people to be short-tempered and grumpy, in a way that's really hard to fight against.
I'm not trying to scream at you about it here, and I hope this isn't coming across as condescending, because I don't mean it that way. I'm just trying to show you why it got the enflamed reaction that it got, and explain why using it in that way was wrong, even if you didn't mean to do it.
I think it's easy to forget that people who aren't in the disabled community don't just know about the stuff we talk about all the time. If you wanted to know more, and I know your experiences might have soured you on us, but you could try looking through the cripplepunk tag, if you wanted to, to give you more context, maybe.
You kinda put your finger into a wound you didn't need to poke at with that post, and people lashed out at you.
I don't think you're evil. I don't agree with people telling you to kill yourself or swearing at you. I think you did the right thing pointing out that NSFW art needs a place to be hosted online.
I don't think you would have said what you did if you'd known how sensitive the Burrito Test and it's related topics are to the disabled community, and I don't think I'm wrong about giving you that benefit of the doubt about that. I hope I'm not.
I don't know if that's context and explanation enough for you to understand why your post got the reaction it did, or if you feel inclined to retract and/or apologise, but at least you know.
Drop me a line if you want to talk? IDK.
I don't know man. I get what you're saying, I really do. But at the same time I have friends who are also physically disabled saying, "the way people are treating you here is fucked up, what you said was absolutely fine if you don't take it in deliberate bad faith." I'm not sure I buy that this is the reaction of "the disability community", as it seems to be pretty much relegated to a particular clique who followed crippled-pvp, and given what sort of bile said clique was willing to throw at me, how far they were willing to pervert and distort my words, I don't feel like they are the authoritative source for what lens this should be viewed through.
In fact, I'm not sure that I will trust the judgement of anyone who claims that they way I was treated here was deserved, or that there is an understandable excuse. "People with chronic pain can be angry and are quick to jump on an outlet for that anger" feels like more a condemnation of them than of me. I have understanding and I have empathy, but there's no excuse for treating other people like shit. There's no excuse for using their negative reaction to being treated like shit as further impetus to treat them like shit.
I will accept that for a lot of people that post wasn't helpful, or that the wording could potentially rub them the wrong way. I will apologize for that, but I don't really think that it is particularly my fault either. Enough people have contacted me now and told me that they found the framing I used helpful, or that it validated their own emotions by drawing parallels to when they themselves had been institutionalised, that I don't think it's accurate or fair to point at what I said and call it "wrong" or abstractly ableist, even if I do accept that the misreading people are complaining about was perhaps inevitable as the post blew up.
I also definitely don't think that it is wrong to make comparisons between modes of rhetoric. "Mentioning a thing" and "mentioning the rhetorical mechanism of a thing" aren't in and of themselves crimes or bigotry or whatever else I am supposedly guilty of here. Specific rhetorical ideas are not the claimed territory of any specific community. If I am guilty of anything, it's of not including adequate disclaimers to clarify my meaning, and I loathe the implication that by not doing so I invited this harm.
