When cyberbullying topic is a good discussion but....

Cyberbullying discussions are good when topics broached are about intimidation, retaliation, control, creating an atmosphere of fear, stalking and the effort to try and ruin people's reputations. I think cyberbullying is all encompassing where it can fall under the stalking, intimidation, and harassment category. Whenever somebody discusses cyberbullying or bullying we generally know it's about harassment. But lately I've noticed how some people simply have the capacity to misunderstand conversations, blogs or vlogs and equate them as threats. We already have one such example that took place in court which proved one person's action wasn't seen as a threat. Just an overly active imagination here.

Let's expand on this here on what's an overly active imagination looks like.

In Russell Errigo's vlog he talked about his fears on how the California government could one day cut off funds to organizations in the hearing loss field in Julie Rems Smario Facebook discussion on June 6, 2010 at 3:09 PM.

My biggest fear is seeing a huge state cutbacks to Norcal, DCARA, GLAD and other sister organization who opposed the AB...2072. The state recognized them as one side viewpoint which does not meet the state standard for the funding purposes. The bridges have been burned.

I remember that comment very clearly. He's clearly concerned. There is no doubt about that.

A couple of months later in August 2004 he brought up the same points and concerns about the potential loss of fundings of deaf organizations in his YouTube video starting at the 1 minute 5 second mark. In that video he did refer elsewhere about a Facebook discussion he had a few months earlier discussing that same concern of his on funding cuts.

But here's the thing. I was a bit dismayed seeing intelligent people who actually thought Russell would call upon the government of California to encourage them to de-fund deaf organizations such as NorCal, DCARA and so forth. No such verbal threats ever happened from Russell. Russell is already on record hoping that this funding cuts WON'T HAPPEN to those deaf organizations. He is already on record as seen in the links I've provided. He clearly shows a concern for those deaf organizations who might see a cut in funds from the state in the coming months and years ahead.

So much for that.

Then there's another discovery on the curious mindset of how some Deaf people think that targeting other Deaf people is justified by contacting their employers. Actions manifested into this whole neurotic orgasm of this "deafhood" movement that has been running amok ever since.

Candy (see her blog) was a victim of a planned attack when nutty people actually contacted her employer based on a lie and disagreements over her blogging opinions and facts.  Although her workshop presentation at the 2010 IRS/DEAF Leadership Development Conference in Salt Lake City recently was a success despite their failed attempt to "boycott" her workshop.

Anybody with a mindset thinking their action is justified in calling an employer over an opinion piece or get upset when a Deaf person works with a variety of deaf and hard of hearing people and organizations (i.e. "working with the enemies") would be seen as borderline delusional. It doesn't pass the smell test when they know their action is designed to psychologically hurt, intimidate, and/or instill certain institutional fear in Deaf people by calling their employers. That action alone is a classic example of how it can fall under the cyberbullying or bullying category. And for those who contribute to help on addressing the cyberbullying problem but at the same time secretly nod in approval on the tactic of contacting employers is an example of hypocrisy in action.

The vulgarization of "deafhood" continues.