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?

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.

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.