No forms of ableism are more socially acceptable than the ones which imply a lack of intelligence or sanity. Few will object to someone being called stupid, crazy or something similar. Furthermore, the questions asked at a competency hearing will put to rest the myth that there's any separation between intellect and emotional/mental stability within the law or in cultural attitudes. It's widely believed that such a deficit can be related to someone's character. When it's implied that it is, it's more likely to be seen as justified and as though what's said doesn't offend other people.
Partisan politics play a vital role in promoting the problem and protecting those who instigate it. Free-market capitalism allows universities to deny most people, an education and some popular conservatives are preaching an anti-science and anti-intellectual message. At the same time, their liberal opposition is educating more people in elitist language and etiquette, which are called other names but stink just as bad and cause as many problems. It may be suggested that since the scholars create the rules, what they learn will trickle down like resources supposedly do. Furthermore, the implication may be that the uninvolved can't support the needed change. However, the claim that bigotry is the result of ignorance, which stems from the lack of education will support how people without monetary resources are believed to have nothing to contribute and are prohibiting progress.
One standard for ranking by which some are exalted and others unfairly excluded, marginalised, disenfranchised, and abused works as well as any other. Inclusion has been commercialized and subsequently, and the ideal diluted so that advocates who are appointed to challenge what's causing the problem are instead promoting it.
Partisan politics play a vital role in promoting the problem and protecting those who instigate it. Free-market capitalism allows universities to deny most people, an education and some popular conservatives are preaching an anti-science and anti-intellectual message. At the same time, their liberal opposition is educating more people in elitist language and etiquette, which are called other names but stink just as bad and cause as many problems. It may be suggested that since the scholars create the rules, what they learn will trickle down like resources supposedly do. Furthermore, the implication may be that the uninvolved can't support the needed change. However, the claim that bigotry is the result of ignorance, which stems from the lack of education will support how people without monetary resources are believed to have nothing to contribute and are prohibiting progress.
One standard for ranking by which some are exalted and others unfairly excluded, marginalised, disenfranchised, and abused works as well as any other. Inclusion has been commercialized and subsequently, and the ideal diluted so that advocates who are appointed to challenge what's causing the problem are instead promoting it.
