UK supermarket launches a quiet hour

[LONDONER]

It's not only for the autistic. I absolutely loathe background music. It's an ever increating trend so that we have music with everything; in supermarkets, stores of any kind, railway stations, in elevators, it's almost impossible to get away from it, the world is noise! People isolate themselves from the world with earphones stuffed in to their ears while they're absorbed in their smartphones. People no longer interact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filte...sy-atmosp/

[Camfer]

I agree it's not only appealing just for the autistic people. I'd definitely enjoy a quiet store.

I figure it's going to be so popular the store will be jammed with people, thus it won't be all that quiet!

Of course food packaging is visually very loud. Just look at the aisles of brightly colored boxes and labels. It's all designed to steal your attention.

[LONDONER]

Of course food packaging is visually very loud. Just look at the aisles of brightly colored boxes and labels. It's all designed to steal your attention.

Advertisers hate me, I'm resistant to their guiles.

[Emiliano]

I think it's great that more people, cultural institutions, and businesses are thinking about accessibility.

[Insertnamehere]

I dunno about there but the local supermarket and the train stations always have a nice choice of radio station to play here. I like that.

Yes, it's nice to do something of the sort for autistic kids, although I wouldn't go as far as what Emil says.

Autism, when treated from early on can render a more or less normal kid, if I've learned anything from being brother to a Special Ed teacher. That should be the main goal, to help the kid get inserted into society, facilitating the process in the best way possible, rather than to tackle the near impossible task of changing the entire social structure to accomodate the kid.

One of my many unpopular opinions, though, I reckon.

Now, I have to ask you about that last phrase you put in there. Why do you suddenly go from external sources of noise to people using headphones and the ubiquitous phrase that comes from the mouth of older generations: people don't interact anymore

I don't see the connection. I can see why any external source of noise can bother someone, but I can't possibly see why someone listening to music and minding their own bussiness affects you in any way or why is it (clearly) bad in your eyes.

I'm one of those, I listen to music during my commuting time, headphones on. I'm not interested in paying attention to other noise or to other people blabbing. They are complete strangers, so why would I want to interact with them?

But to you, that stance is a...bad thing? I don't get it. I'm not disturbing anybody's personal space while ignoring them, so what is the problem to you in that?

[Emiliano]

I dunno about there but the local supermarket and the train stations always have a nice choice of radio station to play here. I like that.

Yes, it's nice to do something of the sort for autistic kids, although I wouldn't go as far as what Emil says.

Autism, when treated from early on can render a more or less normal kid, if I've learned anything from being brother to a Special Ed teacher. That should be the main goal, to help the kid get inserted into society, facilitating the process in the best way possible, rather than to tackle the near impossible task of changing the entire social structure to accomodate the kid.

One of my many unpopular opinions, though, I reckon.

Ive also heard that if diagnosed very early, it's possible to intervene. And people most definitely should be looking for signs of autism and other developmental disabilities in their babies in order to provide them with the most help as they develop. But there are tons of children and adults who are on the spectrum, and just because they aren't part of the typical population doesn't mean that society shouldn't adapt in some ways to better accommodate their needs. I mean, how do you feel about wheelchair accessibility or accomadations made for people with other physical disabilities? There's only so much you can do to prevent disabilities. And it's important to understand that the fight for the accessibility that we do have, has been a hard one.

I don't think there is anything wrong at all about having special, announced times and dates for people with various needs or disabilities to help them feel more comfortable. And not all people on the spectrum have noise sensitivities, and not everyone with those sensitivities are on the spectrum. It's a broader issue here and the sooner that we stop treating people with disabilities as if they are burdens to society with no right to have any special accomadations in the public sphere, the better. Simple things like quiet hours can help a person function higher and more independently, and it makes a world of difference for caretakers, families, and most importantly, the person with the disability, to be made to feel understood, welcomed, and accommodated. Because honestly there really aren't many spaces currently that provide that.

I get that you're not saying "screw them, society owes them nothing." You're a negative dick yeah, but you're not that bad. It just struck me as a strange thing to say that you wouldn't go as far as saying it's great that more people are thinking of how to make their spaces more accessible... This is just a topic I feel incredibly strongly about personally and work towards in my professional life, so I kind of feel the need to respond. We should be doing everything we can to help prevent the more debilitating symptoms from occurring, and to help teach people skills that allow them to adapt better in the broader society. But we shouldn't brush off the people who don't get that happy ending.

[Camfer]

One of the very cool consequences of making towns and cities more accessible to differently-abled people is that it actually makes the world more convenient and fun everyone. It turns out just to be good design.

Example: I don't need curb cuts and wheelchair ramps because at this point in my life I can walk just fine and navigate curbs and stairs. But I've used these features when moving heavy items on a cart. I've used these features right after a hernia surgery, when stairs were painful.

Abilities can come and go. You never know what is going to happen. Thinking we don't need to to make built environments accessible to as many as possible is short sighted about even your own aging process.

I am not autistic, but I love silence. I'd be very appreciative of the opportunity to shop in a quiet store. It might be true that the store did this to accommodate others, but I am not alone in being one to enjoy it.

[Insertnamehere]

It just struck me as a strange thing to say that you wouldn't go as far as saying it's great that more people are thinking of how to make their spaces more accessible...

That is because you (and Camfer and probably Londoner, who never replied to my earlier question btw) are commiting a folly in assuming I am talking on the same general level as you all are.

With that mistaken approach to my particular post, it is easy to see why said post will rub people the wrong way.

But, lets make one thing clear: My comment above was made entirely about autism (which is the main topic here) and nothing else. Nevermind that all of you are yammering about wheel chairs and other disabilites.

With that clear, I suppose we will now understand each other better.

Autistic people do not have accesibility but rather integration issues.

This why I don't share your comment (or rather the particular word you use), when talking about autism, nor do I see the point in all that you just said to me and also what others have talked about accesibility, physical disabilities or growing old, none of which have anything to do with autism (although they make a nice topic on their own).

Unlike a disability, that can come with an unexpected event and will probably have no solution, autism can be detected, managed and even treated to some extent. The person who is autistic doesn't have any physical limitation, they will have a harder time getting integrated into the mainstream society and its developmental demands. So, when dealing with autism, they key is to diagnose it and treat it, just like any other mental/cognitive disorder.

Is mandatory to make every attempt for that integration process to be easier when people have these disorders? Of course it is. If it wasn't my sister wouldn't have a job, for starters.

Is it nice for a supermarket branch to have a little bit of attention to potentially austistic clients? Sure, it's a nice thing..for an hour...and it ultimately fails to solve the main problem at hand.

This is vastly different than that same supermaket to come out with ramps, wider isles, preferential cashiers, etc, for people with disabilites. Because that IS solving a problem on a rather permanent basis for a person, lets say in a wheel chair, who DOES have accesibility problems.

I hope now I have made myself clear.


Since you all like to talk about physical disabilites so much I was going to say something about that, but I think I rather stay quiet and leave that opinion in the shadows. That way the oh so pious and righteous people in this forum can think freely I'm a shitty person who's against helping the disabled. I reckon passing that sort of judgement on people makes them feel good about themselves.

[Emiliano]

That is because you (and Camfer and probably Londoner, who never replied to my earlier question btw) are commiting a folly in assuming I am talking on the same general level as you all are.

With that mistaken approach to my particular post, it is easy to see why said post will rub people the wrong way.

But, lets make one thing clear: My comment above was made entirely about autism (which is the main topic here) and nothing else. Nevermind that all of you are yammering about wheel chairs and other disabilites.

With that clear, I suppose we will now understand each other better.

Autistic people do not have accesibility but rather integration issues.

This why I don't share your comment (or rather the particular word you use), when talking about autism, nor do I see the point in all that you just said to me and also what others have talked about accesibility, physical disabilities or growing old, none of which have anything to do with autism (although they make a nice topic on their own).

Unlike a disability, that can come with an unexpected event and will probably have no solution, autism can be detected, managed and even treated to some extent. The person who is autistic doesn't have any physical limitation, they will have a harder time getting integrated into the mainstream society and its developmental demands. So, when dealing with autism, they key is to diagnose it and treat it, just like any other mental/cognitive disorder.

Is mandatory to make every attempt for that integration process to be easier when people have these disorders? Of course it is. If it wasn't my sister wouldn't have a job, for starters.

Is it nice for a supermarket branch to have a little bit of attention to potentially austistic clients? Sure, it's a nice thing..for an hour...and it ultimately fails to solve the main problem at hand.

This is vastly different than that same supermaket to come out with ramps, wider isles, preferential cashiers, etc, for people with disabilites. Because that IS solving a problem on a rather permanent basis for a person, lets say in a wheel chair, who DOES have accesibility problems.

I hope now I have made myself clear.


Since you all like to talk about physical disabilites so much I was going to say something about that, but I think I rather stay quiet and leave that opinion in the shadows. That way the oh so pious and righteous people in this forum can think freely I'm a shitty person who's against helping the disabled. I reckon passing that sort of judgement on people makes them feel good about themselves.

I get what you're saying. I got what you were saying the first time. But I still think that it's funny that you're so focused on what people should do to diagnose and try to prevent the development of autism that you won't agree with the sentiment that it's a good thing that people are making moves to help people who have these kind of sensory issues. It doesn't solve the issue of having autism but it helps create a more comfortable and less stressful space.

That's why I responded to you, not because I thought you were saying you didn't care about helping people with disabilities.

And maybe the language for all of this is different in Spanish, but in English the term accessibility is what's used when talking about this sort of thing, whether it relates to those with physical or developmental disabilities. Which is why I used it, and stand by my usage of it. Integrating people on the spectrum into broader society is important. But so is creating accessible spaces for them.

And you can brush me off as being self righteous or trying to make myself feel like a better person by working with people with disabilities. But just because someone has a different perspective on this stuff from you doesn't mean their motivations are that self indulgent.

[Insertnamehere]

And maybe the language for all of this is different in Spanish, but in English the term accessibility is what's used when talking about this sort of thing, whether it relates to those with physical or developmental disabilities. Which is why I used it, and stand by my usage of it. Integrating people on the spectrum into broader society is important. But so is creating accessible spaces for them.

And you can brush me off as being self righteous or trying to make myself feel like a better person by working with people with disabilities. But just because someone has a different perspective on this stuff from you doesn't mean their motivations are that self indulgent.

Ok, so we've moved on from the conceptual misunderstanding. Good.

Yes, I do take the term "accessibility" in a strict form. For me, mental disorders do not carry lack of accessibility as described here. In education, for instance, I would agree on you on the term usage, but not as far as physical spaces go. If the term has a wider meaning there, globalizing problems as different in nature as physical disabilities vs developmental disorders, then that's that. I won't embrace the term, but I can now understand the use you make of it.

I was not directing a self-indulgent agenda on to you, nor to anyone else, for that matter. I'm afraid the sarcasm goes unnoticed in writing.

What causes the sarcasm? A phrase by Camfer about short-sightedness, which has its source, most obviously, on your response to my comment. Why?

Because you began to widen the scope of the topic I was discussing by throwing this:

I mean, how do you feel about wheelchair accessibility or accomadations made for people with other physical disabilities? There's only so much you can do to prevent disabilities

And then what do you know. Camfer start talking about physical disabilities too and concluding with that phrase as if it had any relation with autism.

Not only such a judgement reeks of self-indulgence from an outsider's point of view, but from that to take my comments in the same generalized light and even going far as to "brush me off" in that short-sightedness label, it will take a small step, given the dynamics of this place, or at least how they worked at times.

And all because somehow we went from autism to other unrelated disabilites.

I hold you accountable for all of that. Do with that thought whatever you want.

Now onto this

I get what you're saying. I got what you were saying the first time. But I still think that it's funny that you're so focused on what people should do to diagnose and try to prevent the development of autism that you won't agree with the sentiment that it's a good thing that people are making moves to help people who have these kind of sensory issues. It doesn't solve the issue of having autism but it helps create a more comfortable and less stressful space.

Do you mean to say it's funny that I'd be focused on solving problematics on their early stages or even preventing their occurence, if possible, rather than attempting a patch later on?

Well, do forgive me. This structure of thought and action is prevalent in my line of work and to be honest with you, this is the first time someone finds it "funny".

I don't know about you, but when fighting a disorder or disease, I'd rather get rid of the source and not merely treating the symptoms it causes.

The story may appear endearing to the general public, but give me a break. Its 1 hour on 1 store.

Whatever triggered that kid in the article will trigger him in many other environments the 23 remaining hours of the day.

In the story that generated this action from the branch, to go further, I find another more pressing problem: It wasn't the mother who calmed the kid down, but someone else.

Do you think it's nice that the supermarket has decided on a limited action to adress a particular niche of clients? Sure, it is. To me, however, it falls short on 2 sides.

1) If you're truly thinking about making a more pleasant environment, you get rid of the noise all together. Hardly anyone needs music while grocery shopping, no? Legislate on the matter and make it extensive to other branches.

2) You are dealing with a mother who clearly doesn't have the tools to handle the problem. What kind of support is she getting, if at all? Has anyone taught her how to deal with it? Has she asked someone for that help? Has she informed herself about it? What kind of situation sorrounds the kid at home?

I'm sorry if I don't find a cause for celebration that someone decided on an action of limited effectiveness when there are more important issues pertaining that kid that are not being adressed. You can go ahead and find that view "funny".