The dangers of using Wikipedia to look up the word "avdism"

By the way, as an after thought after my recent blog on the banishment of the word "avdism" (misspelled on purpose). Googling in the word "avdism" you will find it at the top of the search result and without thinking or forgetting that you're dealing with a questionable site to begin with you click on it.

At the top of the main page it has these dire warnings:

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2009)

Lack of references or sources and that neutrality is disputed? It certainly makes it questionable on their so-called authoritative explanation of the "avdism" word. So, if you're going to quote something as authoriative please do not use Wikipedia as an example and source.

Also, be sure to check out this Holism blog on why some Deaf organizations and such are a closed society, and this guy is a Deaf blogger/vlogger, too.

In the past few weeks I've been receiving answers on why I just don't get along with Deafhood, Deaf Bilingual Coalition, Avdism Free America and their so-called big "D" status. The answer is quite simple. Closed society. That's what these people are.

Interesting. Maybe he's an "avdist," too?

Deaf on deaf hate crime?

Lately I'm seeing desperation (or so it appears) in one deaf forum when one started a thread with a comment about hate crime claiming it had occurred there:

“We recently experienced a hate crime against our Deaf Community in the AD forum.”

A “hate crime,”? Where? Who? What? Against the Deaf Community in AD? Rather desperate jumping on the hyperbole band wagon are we?

Here’s the definition of what constitute as a hate crime according to the FBI:

“A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.”

All I see are opinionated people who have expressed their thoughts, however unpopular they may be. And nothing about crimes committed against members of AD as far as I can tell. Where and exactly what are the criminal offenses committed against members of AD that would constitute as a "hate crime"? I'm rather curious about this person's charge. Rather a bold (albeit reckless) charge with no merits whatsoever is what I'm seeing here.

I'm sure the person meant something else rather than claiming it to be a "hate crime" which would be a wrong description. Strong biases certainly do exist among members of AD when it comes to posting their own comments and that's natural but a "hate crime"? Until the original poster explains exactly what that "hate crime" was about people simply cannot accept such a charge at face value. More information would be needed to justify a charge of a "hate crime" that fits the above description by the FBI. Odds are that such a charge was generated as an appeal to emotion rather than fact based. Just as using the word "Audist!" as a weapon of choice much in the same way people use the "Racist!" word. Gets quite meaningless real quick.

"Deaf group attacks stem cell researcher for his work on the cure for deafness"

"Arrests were made against a small group of Deaf people who attacked a stem cell researcher for his work on finding a cure for hearing loss. The attack took place at the researcher's home where he sustained multiple injuries. He was treated at a nearby hospital and released. The attack occurred while he was home alone. Graffiti was spray painted on the living room walls and elsewhere in the victim's house with words like 'Audism is wrong,' and 'Deaf babies do not need your help,' along with several epithets. The group, based on the graffiti, named themselve as 'Deaf Crusaders.' "

Could this shocking news conceivably happen someday?

Let's hope not. But with researchers working around the clock all across the United States (and the world) on the cure for hearing loss (see here, here, here, here and here) it would be a matter of time until a cure could be found for various kinds of hearing losses. For some Deaf people they would consider these scientific advancements as a threat to their Deaf culture (see "Will Deaf Culture Die Out Someday - Part I and Part II) should a cure finally be found. And certainly among those few who do view a cure for hearing loss as a threat there could be potentially smaller subset of Deaf extremists who may resort to the use of violence against stem cell researchers on the cure for hearing loss. As with any group there is always a few bad apples who will resort to violence as their means of protesting (see vandalism question at Gallaudet protest). Researchers have been attacked in the past before for their medical work.

Police said several students from the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) attacked a researcher, who uses mice to study breast cancer, at her home Feb. 24. (2008)

The biology professor, who declined to give her name to protect herself and her family from more violence, was at home with her children and husband when the alleged assailants attacked her home just before noon. The suspects attacked the professor’s husband and then fled the scene in a vehicle. Because the incident happened in daylight, the husband, who suffered minor injuries, was able to write down the license plate of the car.

If a bunch of students went after a professor for her medical work on mice to the point of terrorizing and injuring a researcher then it wouldn't be inconceivable that a Deaf person (or a small group of Deaf people) with extremist tendencies to attack a researcher working on a cure for hearing loss. Or for that matter supposingly a cure has been found would a research center get vandalized and broken into in the attempt to "stop" the cure on deafness from getting out. There is always that possibility. It may be small or even non-existant but certainly a possibility based on fear and frustration.

The above news is a hypothetical one but the fact remains that there are always somebody with extremist tendencies who will go further, even to the point of injuring, or heaven forbid, murder a researcher in the name of stopping medical advancements, for example, such as for the cure on hearing loss.

The Errigo and Aguilar Mess

I haven't heard anything about the Errigo and Aguilar mess but briefly heard about it through osmosis until I came across Gamas Wanderings' blog about the whole subject, especially after reading the comments, too. I was able to obtain and read the court transcript about some restraining order nonsense over some boogey-man claim over a threat. At least it certainly appears to be so. But if somebody is electronically harassing you, being a cyberbully or a cyberstalker, you do have the option of not responding, put the person on ignore, select their incoming email as "junk email" and so on. What both of them could've done was to ignore each other, especially Ms Aguilar who went ahead and filed for a restraining order against Errigo. This drama was simply ridiculous to the point of total embarassment for one individual. Let's not use audism or "Deafhood" as a weapon of choice. It simply becomes an exercise of futility and embarrassment.

Forging Ahead

All I can do is shake my head whenever I see these internal squabblings continue to occur within the Deaf community. Of course, this has been going on for years. Yet, at the same time, I'm certainly glad that I do not share their particular brand of narrow-mindedness. I like to think independently on these things. So, squabbles like over DVTV (of which I don't even follow or even really care), Deafread, the advantageous misuse and abuse of the word "audism," the continued personal labeling and slandering, character assassinations, and so on are just a part of every day annoyance worthy of a thousand eyerolls. I guess my flawless plan continues to work!

Yet I'm not certainly going stand by while some groups continue to call babies born with hearing loss (to mostly hearing parents 90% of the time) as "Deaf babies." Not only is this wrong but doing so implies that certain Deaf groups have a stake or "own" these babies over parents. They don't. They have no right to call them as "Deaf babies" unless they are the parents of that baby with a hearing loss to make that call. Despite all that I continue to forge ahead in my life to make the best of what it has to offer. And even laugh along the way, too.

Crybabies or overly sensitive people??

A Foxnews video about the biggest crybabies at the White House is what spurred me to think about Alldeaf, DeafTV, audism, racism and including what Barry said over at his Holism blogsite.

Recently I decided to play the devil's advocate in Alldeaf where I essentially asked the question whether saying "I'm proud to white" would be any different than saying "I'm proud to be black" or any other ethnic background one could be proud of. Since Alldeaf is overwhelmingly a liberal forum with at least one liberal moderator who actually thought that a photo of a cat dressed up as an al Qaeda suicide bomber pictured in the jokes section of Alldeaf was considered as an "offensive" photo. No, I'm serious. Laugh if you will but that's how lame it was. But back to the devil's advocate position I took. I went out there and said "I'm proud to be white." Now, to a liberal they'd find it horrifying since it would bring all kinds of connotations though what I said had nothing to do with white pride like the KKK, skinheads and such. Yet at the same time avoided the question on why it's ok for others to say "I'm proud to be black"? It was a honest question. Hard hitting but honest. I was questioning the double standards. I also asked them whether if they are proud to be white as well? As expected, they evaded the question saying it didn't matter. Or one would say he is proud of one's heritage or ethnicity but at the same time blurt out that it doesn't mean that he is ashamed for being white, either.

Okayyy. They won't say it. Pretty obvious at that.

Say anything else for fear of getting labeled as a "racist," which is ridiculous in it's own right. Even though there's a good chance that for a white or black person to have other ethnic blood (Indian, European, African American, Asian, etc) in him though diluted with each passing generation. AD members began to joke and say, "I'm proud to be a mutt" but the irony is that Alldeaf banned me for a day for using the word "mulatto" to describe Obama as the "first mulatto president," a president of mixed black and white heritage. Entirely acceptable when there is even a mulatto.org group that pride themselves as mulutto people and see Obama as an example of that.

Trust me, it gets surreal in there. Like having a hearing mother make a claim that her profoundly deaf son with a hearing aid can talk and listen over the phone with anybody with ease in an attempt to save face and credibility.

And so by asking the hard question about "I'm proud to be white," I get banned again for "Trolling; Provoking; Enticing; Racism." Bottom line, Alldeaf is essentially calling me a racist for asking the tough questions. They used a coward approach by implying that I am a racist as one of the reason for being banned. Remember what Barry said over at Holism about DeafTV, audism and racism? Or perhaps Krauthammer said it best about using the "racist" charge:

"The accusation of racism is a sign of desperation by people who know they are losing the national debate and they want to hurl the ultimate charge in American politics."

It gets old. You can actually see desperation unfolds when people do that.

Now, are they crybabies? Limp-wristed, overly sensitive people? What do you think? If they ban words like "Deafreedom" in your Personal Message or find a picture of a dressed up cat as a suicide bomber as being "offensive" in the jokes section, no less, then certainly we're dealing with a few loose screws. Kind of like hearing through the filter the den of screams of anguish with the gnashing of the teeth over DeafTV by people who are basically accusing the Deaf owner of DeafTV of "audism" for not defending against "audism" which is equally amusing though I have no interest in the whole affairs anway.

Though it does get old. It becomes an indefensibly and intellectually dishonest approach.

Sensitive people need to suck it up. And argue on the merit itself rather than the route of feigned or mock outrage, and continued ad hominem attacks which a 7 year kid can do that.

It does get old.

I'll be back to ask the hard questions once again as I descend into the voids of liberal thinking tomorrow. A little challenge doesn't hurt anybody, except for the really sensitive ones.