every single thing that you've cited--blocks on a name, ordering food, telling a joke "at the right time"--are things we feel pressure about because we've been taught to compare our speech to the speech of fluent people. your "extension" of my analogy is pretty grim, don't you think? you've essentially recreated ableism within a stuttering-only society. you've stated that if there is ANY variation of fluency in society, those who are less fluent will always be looked down upon and shamed. what about the values of the stutterers on this island? what if they stand firmly for giving everyone as much time as possible as they need to speak because they have no fluent people to base ableism off of, anyway? i think we have a fundamental values disagreement. i think a world where we try to sand away our differences in fluency and all achieve a society with 0 disability is not just impossible and a useless thought experiment, it's evil and opposed to the way i view disability. have you ever been in a room with only stutterers? i'm not denying that differences in stuttering severities lead to very different experiences. i'm saying that living on an island of only people who know what it is to be disfluent, people who are willing to listen to you for as long as the words take to come out mean that we would develop completely new social patterns for stuttering. there would be no such thing as a joke "at the wrong time."