Showing posts with label complainers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label complainers. Show all posts

Saturday, May 07, 2011

Having a fit over "Deaf Trash"

After seeing Barry's video "Deaf Trash" I can't help but think the people who are upset are just probably are so laser-focused on the words "deaf trash" rather than on what Barry discussed in his video. Much the same way on how some tended to focus on the words "ASL failed" rather than the discussion behind it and instead got all upset over those two words.

Now, I'm just thinking here. Bear with me.

Are some people upset because they think they are indeed "deaf trash" in their own minds and felt they were somehow "targeted"?  If they're confident about themselves then there would be no reason to get upset over those words since it would have no bearing on them or of no importance. Perhaps this is a case of people who are simply "context-impaired"?  Barry targeted no one single individual in that video and yet what did some some people do? The run over to Tayler Mayer, the owner of DVTV, and cry about Barry's latest video and demand that he be banned despite the fact that Barry broke no rules in DVTV.  Tayler Mayer knows this. In fact, Tayler had to resort to a video explaining again that members of DVTV have the power to block anyone they want and that DVTV is actually better in terms of being "safer" than YouTube. All this goes to show that Barry has not violated any of DVTV's R-list. Feeling hurt or upset when you weren't personally targeted doesn't count. People have the option to block Barry or anybody else in DVTV. It's easy.

Here's the conundrum.

If people claim to have no interest in Barry's videos then why do they continue to watch his videos on DVTV and continue to complain to Tayler Mayer? Makes no sense. I've a mind that they simply like to whine and complain all the time for whatever reason is simply beyond me.

Barry is a deaf person, he knows that and certainly I understood completely the context on what Barry said, for example, about "deafless" which was simply to mock all the new invented words out there such as the a-wordism.  Words like that are simply not in the dictionary. It was also to point out that the word "deaf" is not all that overly important, either. Much the same way he explained in context and concept in a video on the word "ageless" of an 80 year old man still actively hiking, biking, running or swimming. The 80 year old man knows he's old but that doesn't stop him. Same way with "deafless." Though he does admit he's deaf, too.  Get it? Many don't.

Yet Barry's videos gets the number one spot on the average number of views to each of his videos (60 videos) with OhBuckaroo (24 videos), Barry's son, coming in a 2nd place. All that makes me wonder about the people who don't like Barry and his videos do not make the effort to simply block him on DVTV.  Sure, there will be disagreements. That is to be expected. People can disagree and state their arguments in a good way. Nothing wrong with that. That's what makes debating great.  But run over to Tayler Mayer to complain about Barry's videos doesn't make it all very "adult like." Staging an effort to "walk out" of DVTV over Barry's videos isn't a good thing either but they're free to do what they want in voicing their displeasure. But I think it's rather a dumb thing to do when one can always use DVTV's block feature. The first walk out was a dismal failure. That didn't stop DVTV from its goal on making it as "safe" as possible for all members.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I do understand. The problem here is that members continue to watch in DVTV knowing they have the full power to block out vloggers for whatever reasons instead of demanding the owner of DVTV to ban certain vloggers they don't like. They are an adult. They need to act like one and use the block feature in DVTV.

Oh, btw, happy 4th birthday DVTV. It all began four years ago on May 7th. It is still running strong despite to continual whining.

Barry continues to make a big impact on the deaf community. His message continues to reach out even to the hearing community and the people who don't know sign or know very little with the help of his subtitling efforts in YouTube. He continues to evolve as a person who is a part of the deaf and hard of hearing community, and yes, even the culturally deaf community as well. Love him or hate him, he belong to no one.  His journey is his own personal journey and that no one can tell him what he can or cannot do.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Chris Wallace: "Biggest bunch of crybabies in Washington"

Here's a bit of palate cleanser from a well known news anchor who worked at one time for NBC now works for Foxnews describes how he has to deal with a bunch of crybabies at the White House.




Transcript (below) and captioning via Overstream courtesy of Kokonut Pundit.

Wallace:
When I covered Ronald Reagan for NBC in the 80s, you know some days you do a good piece, passive piece, and then you do a tough piece. And then you come in the next day and they always treated you professionally, I think it came from the top down from the old man, Reagan who felt, you know, I'm gonna get a good review today or a bad review tomorrow, nothing personally. These guys everything is personal. I gotta tell you, everything. They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.

*O'Reilly interjects..unclear.

They're constantly on the phone, emailing me complaining. Well, you have this desk. Or, you did this, this thing. I mean, they are working the, um, I think it works with the others but it doesn't work with me.



Hmmm, crybabies? Sounds about right.

UPDATE: Hmm, the "famous" Mike Malloy has a blog piece with a link that connects to my piece here. Let me say "thank you" but I can't let this one go on what's he's said which is loaded with conspiracy theories worthy of 9/11 Truthers' nod.

Gee Chris, I wonder why Obama refuses to join the “fair and balanced” fantasy with you freaks? You questioned the legitimacy of his Presidency and now call him a crybaby? You dangerous idiots set the tone, organizing anti-Obama rallies and tea-bag parties all over the place; you urged parents to keep their children home from school lest they be mesmerized into zombies by Obama’s scary mind-control speech about working hard and studying in school; you encouraged your brain-damaged Fox “News” viewers to arm up and go to battle to fight the Big Evil in the White House. And, those are just the obvious assaults on rationality.
Assault on rationality? Oh, really? Why is it rational that the current running deficit of approximately $2 trillion dollars which is nearly quintuple (that means 5 times) the amount of Bush's own deficit at the end of 2008? But Obama did all this in an amazing, toilet flushing 6 months time, instead.

Why is it rational to add more govt programs and contribute more to the convuluting mess already? And the fact we don't have the money?

Why is it rational to include the extra 12 million (or however many millions we have) of illegal aliens under the auspice of a national health care program by making them "legal aliens" in one fell swoop? Where's the money? Where will the doctors come from? The question comes into play for the 40 million Americans as well.

Why is it rational to not call it a tax but a "fine" on Americans who do not want health care yet when tax is clearly defined as a charge imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.


STEPHANOPOULOS: Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

***

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase…

***

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.
Who would rather bet on? Webster or Obama?

Zombies?? Ah, you must mean these guys. Had it been anywhere near that nutty with the current protesters who are for limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense you'd see the MSM having a field day reporting these protesters on getting arrested and hauled off by Secret Service to investigate their threatening signs against a president.

Looks like Chris Wallace is right about the crybaby bit. Don't you know already that ACORN supports pimps, drug-addicts, prostitutes, and commie terrorists?

A "sample of sanity" you say? Seriously, I gotta wonder.