Yankee-kun to Hakujou Gaaru - Vol. 3 Ch. 40 - Another White Cane Girl ①

[confusedbeaver]

Thanks for the scanslating, really appreciate it a lot, made me smile and tear up a lot. Keep up the good work, love ya guys.

 

[DeProgrammer]

@justforthelulz But this isn't MOS Burger, it's NASU (eggplant) Burger!

@Daxar @Outtatim I know, right!? I'm not sure I've seen anyone spell it correctly in years. But wait, there's more where that come from! I also know how to spell "O great one", "should've", "lo and behold", and "forty"!

(My intentional avoidance of putting punctuation inside quotation marks stems from being a programmer, though. String literals, baby!)

 

[chusetto]

Hyperosmolar nonketotic coma

 

[simplicity]

Mickey Dees do be better in Japan tho

 

[Tamerlane]

In regione caecorum, Rex est Luscus.

 

[ShayGuy]

@Walter_vi_Britannia I know you think that's a kind thing to say. It's really not. There's nothing amazing about not committing suicide, disability or no. Yukiko isn't extraordinary or heroic for trying to live her life as best as she can.

And it's REALLY harmful to propagate the idea that life with a disability isn't worth living -- it's the sort of notion that leads people with power over disabled people's lives to withhold life-saving treatment, under the justification that the resources would be wasted on them. That happens a lot in the medical systems of quite a few countries; a lot of disabled activists can tell you the names of dear friends who died for that reason (see Carrie Ann Lucas for one prominent example -- or Mel Baggs, author of the post I linked above, who died just this month at the age of 40 trying with all her might to get the medical care she needed to live). And there are far too many people who kill their own disabled family members, and are often treated sympathetically for it because the murder is perceived as a mercy. Take this to the extreme, and you get Satoshi Uematsu.

It's completely normal and unexceptional for a person who acquires a disability to keep wanting to live. And that's important.

 

[Purplelibraryguy]

@Walter_vi_Britannia Aside from what @ShayGuy says, you're also almost certainly mistaken. They've done studies; people who have major accidents and end up disabled surprisingly end up, after a year or so, about as happy as they were before. Same goes for most changes in what you might call external fortune. A lot of people's ideas about just what makes you happy are wrong.

 

[ngkn92]

Another girl, but this girl is wild.
This manga is just too good, can't wait for the next chapter.

 

[RigobertoParedes]

Is turn to know more about the cute blind friend, lets go boys. I like how she do her best.

 

[eviljackspicer]

"I WANNA SEE MY GIRLFRIEND'S EMBARRASSED SIDE!!"

"Sir, this is a Wendys"

 

[Endominus]

@Purplelibraryguy, if you're referring to hedonic adaptation, I'm afraid to let you know that that's pretty much a myth. See this blog post (scroll down to the "Hedonic Adaptation & Happiness" section) for more details. Or you can read the abstract of the paper that deals directly with people that suffered disabilities, following almost a thousand people for multiple years before and after their disabilities.

This isn't to say that people without disabilities don't have a right to life and all that other stuff that you and @ShayGuy were arguing; I entirely agree with you both on that. It's just that that specific claim, that massive negative or positive life events don't actually matter to long-term happiness, is false, and shouldn't be spread. It's not "wrong" for disabled people to actually be less happy after becoming disabled; it's entirely normal and unfortunate, and they shouldn't feel any compulsion by others to just shrug it off or have the difficulties of their situation trivialized by thinking that they'll just adapt to the circumstances.

Have a good day!

 

[Purplelibraryguy]

@Endominus That's very interesting! It's not a position I was emotionally attached to so I don't mind finding out different. Looking at the blog post, and then the meta-analysis article it linked to, it seems like different life events actually have quite different kinds of impacts. Divorce actually seems to be positive! Well, given what my wife used to tell me about her life with her first husband that's not really a huge surprise to me.
I also notice that the construct they're using has two pieces--"Subjective Well-being" is a combination of "Affective Well-being" (how people actually feel) and "Cognitive Well-being" (how people evaluate their lives). I like the way that study pays attention to the distinction between those two components and looks at the differences between how they're affected. That in turn makes me wonder a bit about the blog post's initial comment on wealth impacts on "happiness" and how, albeit in a tapering-off ("logarithmic") way, increasing wealth does continue to make people happier even at the upper ends. If it's this "Subjective Well-being" thing they're measuring, that claim could itself be misleading. Obviously increasing wealth is going to increase "Cognitive Well-being"--if you ask people how their life is going they'll be like "Yeah, I'm kicking it! I'm rich!" What most people would understand from a claim that wealth past a certain point doesn't impact happiness would be that it doesn't change "Affective Well-being", which could still be the case.

 

[BakedBanana]

Another anime girl eating a burger that I can add to my picture collection. (Page 10)