Over the past several years I have progressively become one of the more well known deaf/hh bloggers by those who like to read blogs. Over time I knew I’d be delving deeper into the seemingly quixotic ideals of the Deaf world with each deaf-related topic I write. A topic that would either send people howling and convulsing along with the gnashing of their teeth, or have them nod their heads with understanding and concurrence. Maybe even get a chuckle or two from readers. Yet, what I've witnessed has become a paradoxically funny turn of events in an odd sort of way seeing how some people objected to on how I write my blogs almost as if they’re demanding that their own sensitive sensibilities not be violated. Well, no one forced them to read my blogs if they are THAT sensitive to begin with. Why bother reading them if you disagree with them and that you get upset easily? Maybe a little sunlight here and there helps?
Aargh!
I’m not a Deaf blogger but a blogger who happens to have a hearing loss. No need for a feel good label. I’m “a nationally known professional patriotic purveyor of highly entertaining and informative blogging” or so says the title description seen in my blog which describes me pretty accurately I suppose. What I write is my own artful expression of what I want to discuss what's on my mind. But this isn't the first time when people have gotten upset over my writings. This has been going on since I started blogging in back in 2004. Yet, realize that each of us bloggers carries certain strength to the community whether it’s the deaf/hh communities or the Deaf community. But to blog is to express oneself in a variety of ways. Yet some people tend to convulse a bit now and then.
Aargh!
Next, this whole “anti-deafhood” claim is getting a bit out of touch with reality here when it was simply about how people have politicized “deafhood” that people disagree with. It was a philosophical concept that was contrived and invented as a feel good word to muck about with. Remember that paradoxically funny turn of events I said earlier? Well, this is one of them when people get upset whenever Deaf, deaf or hard of hearing people who speak up up on how they don't care for the word. Some disagree with the word seeing it as the equivalent as someone inventing the word "blindhood" or "intellectually-challengedhood" or "wheelchairhood" or whatever other nonsense words to be contrived, manipulated, and mangled like once fresh human beings turned into zombies with appendages and bodyparts falling off. And whenever people disagree over something, then they're labeled "anti" something. If I disagree with the word "blindhood" and then suddenly you get people go on the warpath screaming with zombie-like expressions with fingers pointing at you with large eyes and gaping mouths, "You anti-blindhood! You anti-AFA! You anti-deafhood!" Whatever. Maybe we're just a bunch of pro-common sense people to begin with? Instead people vulgarize the word constantly. You know, zombie-like vulgarization.
Aargh!
I’ve also seen how people attempt to use “social guilt” in the effort to somehow “control” or "influence" how people should write, think or say (e.g. “anti-this” and “anti-that”). Rather than agree to disagree people go overboard using “social guilt” to push their own brand of agenda around. I’ve seen how people are easily misled by false claims or myths like how faulty cochlear implants have shocked children as if it was a wide spread problem. That is an example of an (highly) exaggerated claim since about 1/10th of 1 percent of implanted children in one case study (922 patients) experienced “shocking sensation” (rather than “shocked children” since it envisions a picture of kids gettting shocked like sticking a fork into an outlet plug or something). In that case study I mentioned only 1 patient experienced that “hard failure” of getting that "shocking sensation" from an implant as reported in a recent 2008 Otology & Neurotology report. What's next? Cochlear implants will turn kids into little zombie runts?
Aargh!
Oh, by the way, be sure to buy your latest zombie wig to go with your upcoming zombie Halloween outfit. There's nothing scarier than a zombie with a blond wig!
Aargh!
28 comments:
Reminds me of the $2 Yellow T-Shirt Society in California. They sure looked like zombies when they lined up to speak to the hearing panel. They sounded alike too because they were orchestrated by DonG. That was a scary thing to witness.
you are on deafread/deafvillage. Of course you are going to get comments relating deaf issues. If you don't like it, take your blog off the list.
Indeed, "social guilt" is an extension of the group-think mentality that some ppl try to impose on v/bloggers who have different opinions.
It seems that some can't agree to disagree.
*shrug*
Ann_C
Anony 1:43 pm
why on earth would I want to remove my blog from DR or DV? If you don't like my blog it is YOU who doesn't need to read it. No one forced you to read anybody's blog.
Oh, there is a cigar guy!
Oh, he's over there!
Oh, he's under the bed!
Oh, he's with a girl at a bar!
Oh, he's at the wedding!
Oh, he's at the mall!
Oh, he's at the golf meet!
Oh, he's at the football field.
Oh, he's at the baseball playoff! Oh, he's at the Oklahoma Sooner's Stadium!
Oh crap, he's everywhere!
He's REALLY a cigar guy!
White Ghost
By the same coin, no one forced you to read or listen to the Deafhood, AFA, DBC or other organizations that you object to, nor their philosophy of empowerment in their various definitions.
Dianrez, not quite the same thing and certainly not on the same coin when it comes individual opinions on organizations' agendas and even their discrepancies. It is also about raising awareness for those who are not familiar or aware of what is going on. It may be based on facts and/or opinions. Doing allow other readers to be more informed or aware of certains brought forth.
Correction:
Doing so allow readers to be more informed or aware of certain issues brought forth.
right, and some people are raising awareness (such as DBC) too... and stamping out ignorances or stereotyping.
anony 7:02 PM
Not to mention going overboard on certain things.
You're making an exception for yourself. Okay to attack other opinions, ideas, etc., but for others to correct, dispute or comment on your opinions? Oh, not the same thing.
No, exception here. People can dispute my opinions for all they want. Just the same people can support my opinions for all they want when they find them agreeable. i disagree with what people say here just as well whenever I agree with them. No difference.
The problem here is when people take exception do they seemingly "demand" that I somehow "compensate" them for my way of blogging and discussing issues whenever their sensibilities get offended.
From: http://dianrez.xanga.com/732819637/divisive-or-reflective-looks-at-the-deaf-community/
"No law against criticizing or stirring up people, unfortunately. It's entertaining for some people, attracts a mix of readers, and is self-gratifying to certain kinds of people. But you're doing it in a way that is DIVISIVE. It angers people, attracts a few similarly disaffected people as supporters for their own motives, and could be quoted by uninitiated people as evidence for their own position: such as parents with the impression that the ASL-using Deaf community is an unhealthy one. People who generally don't know our community.
Some advice, friend. If you want to stir up people, be willing to accept a mix of responses and recognize the truth in each one. Aim for unity, not fishing for responses that match your disaffection and twisting the words of those that disagree with you.
Think of the desired end result: mutual understanding, not divisiveness. Then you'll earn credibility as an intellectual."
Your opinions come from your experience, which includes taking orders by phone for a pizza place, confidently correcting transcripts written by hearing people, and enjoying playing RagTime piano.
Many of the solutions that work for you (just suck it up and pretend to be hearing), don't work for those with more significant hearing losses.
Your criticism of the Deaf community comes from outside because you've placed yourself above the community, able to critique, but not able to accept criticism and actually make any changes to your repetitious views, even when they are shown not to work for other people, hence turn out to be BAD ADVICE.
You post so many blogs to Deafread that simply dig at the community that it has me wondering how much ad revenue you're collecting from the practice of intentionally irritating people without actually having to consider what they tell you back.
No real exchange of ideas allowed here. Just Mike's opinion on how we should do things, people explaining that Mike's opinion only works when Mike is the only person in the world who counts (because he has enough hearing to pass as hearing out in the larger world, so doesn't have many of the problems the rest of us have), then another round of Mike's opinion on how we should live.
We have to show up and correct you each time, because you keep making the same mistakes and fooling Deafread into posting them as though they came from a person who actually struggles in the hearing world enough that community is a needed concept.
An "open society" of one. Just Mike.
B.E.A.
The main difference between Mike's blog and the v/blogs by the "other side" such as Deafhood, DBC, AFA, etc., is that the DHers don't like having their ideas challenged. When Mike or somebody else takes them to task for the things they say or do, the DHers can only call him names like axdist or throw around words like "moot" or "invalid" without putting forth any arguments of merit. They never discuss opinions, they just get personal. That's my beef with them. For example, DHers maintain that Deafhood is all about the personal journey to discover one's positive deaf identity. Then they turn around and say things like CI, oralism, and even lipreading are bad and against deaf culture. Candy has made several blogs giving lots of examples.
It's thanks to people like Mike and Candy who aren't afraid to say out loud that the emperor has no clothes.
Anonymous 456
Ok. So, when someone offends YOUR sensibilities, you call them trolls, but when you offend someone else's sensibilities, it's just your way of blogging. HMMM. Interesting... you see certain people as demanding that you 'compensate" for your way of blogging. COMPENSATION??? What on earth are you talking about?
You haven't given balanced views of the Deaf community issues. They tend to be slanted which is a reflection of your attitudes towards the culturally Deaf. That is a fact. When has anyone demanded "COMPENSATION" from you? *scratching my head*
I have to agree with Dianrez's take in this blog.
Shel
Shel,
Offend my sensibilities and I call them trolls? Where? They're welcomed here as long as they follow my rules on commenting.
"Compensation" in a word like them expecting you to acquience to their demands on not to blog in a certain way. Or demand that DeafRead remove "deficit thinkers" from its aggregator website. Hence, my quotes, "compensation."
Anyone is entitled to blog and comment an opinon or even state facts and provide their opinons on said facts. That is an entitlement anyone has. They are allowed to.
The problem here is that certain people are offended that some people have certain views of organizations or topics that covers deaf peopl. If they don't agree with it, that is all they have to do. Say they don't. They can blog about it. However, these people within DBC and DH are taking opinons way too far. They get personal and attack people behind the articles and comments. They don't just disagree, they attack like zombies do.
We do know that certain DBC and DH folks want deafread to be very deaf centric where no one disses them. Their idea of discussions entails them telling you that you are wrong about it and that they are right. They expect zombies to nod their head in agreement with everything they say because they think they are the experts.
They do not like the fact that there are independent thinkers that are disagreeing with their mission or approach. We are entitled.
I do get comments that disagrees with my view, that's alright. They are entitled. But, when they go beyond disagreeing, that is when it isn't agree to disagree.
Group think - zombies
Case in point: check my comment section later today in my most recent post.
B.E.A. I guess she needs some editorial control over her own ideas to ensure that her own sensibility remains intact? I don't know but it's certainly her own blog and she's free to say whatever she wants.
Oh, I don't pretend to be hearing. I tell people I do have a hearing loss, and do at times to tell them to speak up or repeat what was said (mostly due to when there are more people in a room such as during a meeting).
Is this your attempt to do the whole he's "acting like a hearing person" routine in a rather subtle/subconcious way? At least it appears to be that way.
I've always supported for the use of technology to help shrink that communication gap for people with hearing loss. I've always supported parents who make an informed decision on communication and educational options for their deaf and/or hard of hearing children. No where have I stated I was against ASL but rather I support all kinds of communication modalities since no one shoe size fits all.
Funny how you say "We have to show up and correct you each time." Who is this "we" business stuff? Not sure what is there to correct. Sure, you and others show up to make a stated opinion, but to correct? Like what, for example? Correct what? I could probably think a few remote examples. Instead I see more opinions like how people still have a dislike on how I blog like for the nth time. I've blogged this way ever since. You can always not read my blog.
Is this your attempt on starting a new myth here wondering whether I get money from ad revenues. Sure, it was just thinking outloud as an excuse. But the funny thing is that I don't get any money from any advertisements seen on my blog. Zero. Zippo! Zilcho! It's a product I believe in and so and allow it on my blog. Isn't that so hard to understand, Dianrez? Those products match well in what I believe on how technology improves communication access.
BEA, what you've attempted here was to encourage people by sowing doubts which could have them accept this so-called new myth of yours. It's like this whole Candy cyberstalking/cyberbullying incident all over again. Is that your new way of cyberbullying or what? Am I sensing desperation on your part. Why not ask me privately about those ads instead? Curiouser and curiouser.
This blog should not be on deafread. Calling certain group of people "Zombies" is a form of bullying.
anony 3:47 PM:
It's not cyberbullying. It's disagreeing with some people's opinions who mindlessly go about pointing fingers at, of all people, Deaf people calling them, for example, "avdists." Go after those who don't agree with your opinions or suggestions. A good example of that is people mindlessly calling Tayler Mayer an "avdist." Ergo, zombies....in spirit of Halloween that is.
Cyberbullying pertains to going after a specific person. My action isn't cyberbullying but rather disagreeing on certain prevailing beliefs or actions.
That myth about me making ad revenues (which is false) is just as bad as the myth that the 1st amendment in the U.S. Constitution is about the separation of church and state (which is false). Everybody believes it but if you look closely you'll find it to be ridiculously false.
To anonymous at 3:47 pm: Very lame. Utter failure of comprehension. Please don't bother posting your comment if you cannot fully grasp the subject or understand the irony in a comprehensive manner. Kids under the age of 10 can understand irony better than you.
According to DeafRead's guidelines, it doesn't matter if a blogger is deaf, hard-of-hearing or hearing. Entries must pertain to the deaf (small d emphasized) community.
If you're unclear by what that means you can find the definition here. http://deafness.about.com/cs/culturefeatures1/a/bigdorsmalld.htm
The lines that divide the deaf and Deaf can be murky.
The DeafRead aggregator is NOT restricted to Deaf people only, and never has been.
I would suggest to those who wish for a 'Deaf only' aggregator to start one themselves.
Once again, the Deaf are part of a much larger community of deaf and hard-of-hearing people who consider themselves culturally hearing. Like any diverse community we may have different opinions about a lot of things.
I don't care it is lame or not. It is bullying. A person can use the same type of irony about black people.
Anony 5:20 AM,
No, it's not bullying. LOL. You are definitely hard up on trying to make this into a bullying thing.
I'm making some points here. How idiotic is it for Deaf people to go around calling other Deaf people as "avdists." They might as well be those zombies who say those things.
Fine, you want to carry on, go ahead...
It never made a point to me. It just made people who agree with you in the first place cheer even louder. Even claimed "... they sure do look like zombies when they lined up to speak to the hearing panel..."
Dr. Don G. made a funny video. he finally made a creative humor! hee, hee......It's rare for him to make a creative like that.....good for him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuxqwCcGmSQ
Happy Halloween.....
White Ghost
Yeah, WG, pretty desperate of him if not outright flattery doing the zombie hookey pokey thing. I guess he still reads my blogs. I thought he said he was done with me and my blogs as seen in Dianrez's blog comment? Again, if it's brains then I suppose that $664 dollars in Monopoly money would be real money to any self-respecting zombies, right?
Post a Comment