Persona non grata or pettiness?

It has been several months since I accessed Deaf Echo's website which is a holdover from their old DeafDC site. It has been over a year since Oct 9, 2011 when I realized that I was really persona non grata on participating in their discussion when I discovered I could no longer post comments in the "The YouTube Video You Don't See" article piece written by Chris Heuer, (an associate professor at Gallaudet University who teaches some great courses, btw). His article was about Sarah Churman's video that went viral when her implantable hearing aid was turned on for the first time. The comments are no longer there ever since Deaf Echo upgraded/renovated their website. However, comments can still be seen archived through the Wayback Machine. 

My comment did go through at first as you can see in my screen capture

Well, the video went viral with no fault of Sarah. No one expected it to go viral. She never expected to go on the Today Show and Ellen DeGeneres show, and get featured in CNN with Anderson Cooper. Never expected to get her money reimbursed. Yet, she's taking the brunt only because the video went viral and been interviewed by some of the major networks. Had it been only 200 or 2000 views, this would've been a non-story.
 

My post came approximately 14 minutes after Dianrez's posted comment. Approximately 83 minutes later I checked again only to see that my comment disappeared. That's when I realized and assumed on Oct 9, 2011 that I was persona non grata from participating in any of their discussions on their Deaf Echo website. I first got the boot in February 21, 2011 (see Mod's issuing a ban against me) but I had no idea my ban was permanent until my comment go removed did I suspect the permanency of my ban on Oct 9, 2011. That was the second time my comment was removed. The first time my comment was summarily removed was on April 12, 2011 after only several minutes as you can see in the screen capture. Nice cover-up and no attempt to answer a simple question.

Here's where I made an interesting discovery almost a year later just this week.

I found out I was unable to view/access Deaf Echo's website at home and instead got a DNS error message (i.e. "This page can't be displayed") on my browser. The same thing on my wife's laptop. But I can still view it at home on my laptop through a different channel and noticed that Deaf Echo's website is functioning fine and not simply down. I asked my friends if they could access it and they all said yes. I asked if they could view D.E. through my links on my blog pieces. Not a problem. All that led me to believe in their own pettiness (again, it IS their website, you can be petty all you want) Deaf Echo decided to block my IP address in the effort to prevent me from viewing their public website.

Excuse me?

Prevent me from viewing it? Really go that low?

Deaf Echo is not a private website but certainly a public website open for viewing.

I expected more professionalism from Deaf Echo but I suppose they do have the right to throw essentially a tantrum by putting up a wall because they didn't like what I wrote in my blogs, if that really was the case. I sincerely hope not and I hope I'm quite wrong but it's looking more like the other way.

I believe the owner of Deaf Echo eventually discovered my blog piece I did on March 12, 2011 essentially challenging Deaf Echo on the whole Wisconsin union protest and Gov. Scott Walker.  Or maybe it was this blog piece where I noted them for censoring me in a piece called "AGBell are now officially Deaf people" on Sept 8, 2012 as a reason for the blocking? I am pretty sure I was able to access their website a few more times after Sept 8, 2012 but it was just this week I discovered I was unable to access their website through normal channels on my laptop via my internet provider.  Something happened between Sept 8, 2012 and this week.

I'm fine with the ban on participating in their forum discussion. They have their own justification for doing so, however petty it may seem. But what I find incredulous is their attempt to block me further from viewing their Deaf Echo website. And the reason is....what?  This?  This?
This? This? Or this?

Dunno. Whatever the reason it's a petty thing to witness.


ADDENDUM: Joeseph Pietro Riolo made a good comment on a piece I did on April 12, 2011 about the removal of my comment by a moderator and the sadness of seeing such attitudes.

I saw your comment over there at Deaf Echo and later on, much to my surprise, your comment was gone. I questioned myself whether you removed your comment on your own or the editor or moderator of Deaf Echo deleted your comment.

Now, I know you did not.

This whole thing saddens me. I had high respect for Deaf Echo and I am trying to stay positive about it. But, this is the second time that your comment was removed. But then, as you wrote, the editor or moderator of Deaf Echo has the complete prerogative in controlling the comments and I could not argue against it. Is Deaf Echo becoming another yet platform for bashing cochlear implantation and by extension, people who have cochlear implant? I hope not.

(It seems that there is no end in attempting to make an analogy between cochlear implantation and everything else. I came across an analogy between cochlear implantation and circumcision(!) somewhere many moons or ages ago. I dread to see what will be the next analogy.)

Joseph Pietro Riolo

I, too, had high hopes for DeafDC which has morphed into Deaf Echo because many of their articles written by many different deaf authors (any hh or non-Deaf authors?) were very good, insightful and the kind that make you think. Other articles have allowed us a peak into the author's window of their "extremist" thinking. Not that it's bad but it is an interesting realization. Regardless, DeafDC is still worthy of a read but then again only if some of the people over their learn to take their pettiness out of the way and allow diverse views and thinking be a part of the discussion. I think all of this was precipitated by their own hands when I had my own views about the Wisconsin union/Gov Walker debate that were opposite of theirs did they find or at least they thought they did reason and justification to ban me since I was the only one their with an opposing viewpoint when they really wanted was total and uncompromising support instead. All of this this ended with the total IP block to their Deaf Echo website which was the manifestation of their continuing disagreement over my political stance, my way of questioning things and linking to their articles or people who commented over their since I could not do so because I was PNG. I had an opinion and blogged about. Nothing bad or extraordinary about that.

Gears of paranoia

During the days of the anti-AB2072 protest there were several articles (here, here, and here for example) that were against the California AB2072 bill where they have reached Godwin's law status. Words were peppered with analogies of Nazi's own eugenics experiments as being the equivalent to what was happening with the AB2072 bill. Not only was this wrong but it's an insult to those who have died from such experiments of the Holocaust Days. Not only does this reek of paranoia it also potentially left a bad taste in many people's mouths about the Deaf community (in general) in California. It certainly didn't help for one Deaf organization in California that sent a flyer to California senators basically accussing them of eugenics if they support the AB2072 bill. Not a smart tactical move there. How would you feel if you got a letter saying if you don't support us then you're a Nazi sympathizer! Or something to that effect.

What would hearing parents of deaf/hh children think of the Deaf community in general now? What are hearing people's own perception in California after they watched the news on their television sets, accessed the internet, read the articles or saw Edwin Black do a lecture and become familiar with the whole AB2072 brouhaha? In Russell's own words in one of my blog comment section he said this.

You're right about parents accessing internet and would say WTF. More than half of the parents that I've talked to for the last 3 months were aware of AB 2072 fiasco. Most feel disturbed about the opposition of the bill and they questioned why they're always negative when there's an opportunity for everyone.

My experience from their reaction was not positive. The image of the community does taint into parents' minds. That's beyond my hands

I think those articles have hurt more than it has helped. Such use of Nazi analogies shouldn't be used. Even Dianrez agreed with this notion back in 2008 and it should not be any different in applying that opinion to that of today though she is curiously quiet about this part in relation to the AB2072 protest and use of Nazi analogies in the Deaf community.

Let’s not use Nazi analogies in our Deaf community. No one is plotting to exterminate us. Even exterminate ASL, since that has endured over 100 years despite oralism.

Saying otherwise would be an example of paranoia manifested in the form of hateful use of Nazi analogies and words of eugenics tossed carelessly about. The difference between a sane person who knows with utmost confidence about their own culture and language in its ability to survive and expand while gaining acceptance versus a desperate person who resorts to ad homenim attacks and Nazi analogies who thinks nothing but the worst that the Deaf community and its culture will come down to a crashing halt. What drivel. Signs of desperation and lack of faith.

The gears of paranoia churn in the heads of many. It's fine to be concerned but it gets to the point of ridiculousness by jumping into a sea of hyperbole in order to try and scare people over something that's not. And when that happens you'd have multitudes more gullible people believing in such nonsense information.

Why the word "a*dism" ought to be banned

The word "a*dist" or "a*dism" is without controversy just as the word "racist" or "racism" is without controversy. This is especially true when used as a weapon of choice by purposely abusing it to suit an agenda. Words tossed around for a variety of reasons but usually done as part of an automatic and defensive response when arguments cannot prevail adequately.

I am known as a deaf/hh blogger and vlogger (limited tho in speaking roles only, and with captions) that is without controversy just as I am known as a contributing and valuable member in deaf/hh discussion forums. I am without controversy if anybody has ever followed my blogs or postings over the years but to have a controversal blog piece or a post/thread isn't equivocal as being an "a*dist." Nor can one extract and assume exactly what the attitudes might be and surmise them to be as "a*dists", either. Even if a comment or thread of a post that might deemed be "offensive" or "controversal" it'd be wise to keep in check than to throw the "a*dism" word around.

The title of my blog "Why the word 'a*dism' ought to be banned" was to drive a point and get your attention since it should be titled "Should the word 'a*dism' be banned?" If you know me you'd understand why I did this.

Three years ago I did what was probably considered to be the most controversial action I've done within a Deaf community (though I don't think playing the piano on stage at Gallaudet University for an audience isn't the same thing) and that was to use my voice in a speech at Gallaudet University back in 2007. I spoke at the first ever vlog/blog convention at Gallaudet University with a conviction believing that technology will continue to increase communication access between deaf/hh and hearing people. And it will. You can see a video of my speech in Gallaudet University's video catalog (or click here to watch the video in external mode that comes with a time stamp which I recommend doing so). My speech comes with an ASL interpreter. I am introduced at the 1 minute 54 second time mark along with other bloggers. My speech begins at the 29 minute and 14 seconds time mark and ends at the 45 minute and 35 seconds mark). I was the only deaf/hh person to have spoken using my voice and I explained my reason for doing so in my 2007 blog piece. Prior to my speech I verbally apologized to the audience (interesting that the interpreter never signed this "apology" part to the Deaf audience if you watched the video) at the very beginning for using my voice knowing that what I was about to do for those who know me as a deaf/hh person who know sign language would find it questionable, even insulting.

Yet my speech was only "controversial" to perhaps a small number of Deaf people who felt that I "insulted" Deaf people by not signing since some of them knew already that I do know ASL and by using my voice I was looked upon as an "a*dist." Nothing could be further from the truth. And frankly, it was rather amusing to hear such an accusation. Understandable, sure, in some ways but nonetheless amusing.

Firstly, I apologized in the beginning of my speech to the audience before me explaining that I do better speaking since my train of thought flows much better, I have done public speaking many times, it is natural for me to speak as I have done so throughout my life, there are interpreters available and that there is a real time captioner to capture my speech. All this was done to drive my most basic point and that technology will be key in helping expand and level the communication playing field between Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing people. I still believe to this day that technology will be key in helping bridge that communication gap we all face today. It's just a matter of time.

Jill Bradbury, an assistant professor of Gallaudet University, was the original author of this blog/vlog conference idea where she hosted this first ever blog/vlog conference or Coalition for Critical Inquiry at Gallaudet University. Jill Bradbury posted a positive comment in my blog about my speech.

I thought it took a lot of confidence to stand up and speak during your panel. By doing so, you helped the conference make a strong statement about embracing diversity in the deaf community. Waving hands! At dinner someone said to me that you are supporting the deaf community in a really valuable way through your interest in technology. Thanks for keeping us informed! Jill.Bradbury 02.04.07 - 1:28 pm

Not only was I recognized and applauded for my so-called "controversial" speech from her but from other Deaf people who I've met afterwards and those who commented in my blog were equally praise worthy.

From "A Deaf Pundit" who is a well known Deaf blogger and vlogger had this to say about my use of my voice as seen in my blog comment box:

I was also pleasantly surprised to see that despite the diverse panelists, except for some fine details, all were in general agreement on what needs to be done to improve Gallaudet and the deaf community.

Chris Heuer, an assistant professor who is Deaf at Gallaudet University said this in my blog:

I was inspired by the conference and am DEFINITELY going to a much bigger web-geek than I already am!

Kristi Merriweather, a high school teacher for the deaf in Atlanta, Georgia had this to say:

I enjoyed the webcast, Mike and like many, you were not what I expected!

I mean, for sure I thought you'd bring that "sucky" piano! :-D

I really enjoyed watching the debate in MY language - you have no idea how good that made all of us feel!

Dianrez, a well known Deaf blogger who had this to say:

While I don't mind deaf people who prefer to speak than to sign (I have enjoyed talking to Robert Weitbrecht and others like him), using an interpreter puts an inadvertent wall between like people and this really should be avoided even at the expense of comfort. Still, we need people with your expertise. Wishing you all the best and enjoying your blogs very much! DPG Dianrez Homepage 02.04.07 - 2:49 pm #

Neil McDevitt, a known Deaf blogger and fire fighter who had this to say ,

Sorry we didn't get a chance to chat yesterday. I can certainly empathize with the decision to speak. I think you and I come from similar backgrounds and for the longest time, I would prefer to speak in front public audiences because it just felt more comfortable in terms of managing my train of thought.

That said, given that you were speaking at Gallaudet, it took brass cojones, my friend.

Stay low.
NeilMcD Homepage 02.04.07 - 5:42 pm #

"Curious Eyes" or Patty Albee (see page 6) who is a school psychologist at California School for the Deaf Fremont and was one of the panelists at the blog/vlog conference who had this to say:

McConnell, I thought I'd have issues with you speaking on the panel too, when you first told me you were going to do it. I asked the same question ToddE did -- what about the audience? But I changed my mind after meeting you, and seeing how you sign fluently and are easy to talk to. Some deaf people can both sign and talk fluently. If that person chooses to talk instead of sign to an audience of deaf people, that does not mean the person disrespects ASL and deaf people. It isn't "a*dism" either. It's simply a communication choice. That's ALL. The interpreter did a great job of interpreting for you and I didn't feel I was missing a thing. Curious Eyes 02.04.07 - 7:52 pm #

Wildstarryeyes or Katie Roberts (see page 6) who was also one of the panelists at the blog/vlog conference who had this to say

Yes, speaking, that was fine. I thought that took guts, too. I had no problem with it personally. It was nice meeting you, and I'm glad we could keep our little turf wars online and not carry it over in meatspace.

Aidan Mack, another well known Deaf blogger (and vlogger) who had this to say:

Firstly, I was impressed with you as a panelist. I agreed with you that Gallaudet University needed to create something that would make the world drawn to Gallaudet and embrace it so much.

Secondly, at first I always felt that you disliked ASL and Deaf people with big D until I saw you on a Live Web. It really changed how I looked at you and realized that you do support ASL and Deaf people with big D.

Thirdly, I really do wish that you did sign because it was your sign (word). With interpreter, I felt it was not your word. I felt something's missing. But again, it is your choice to speak and I have nothing against it. But what you sent your message to audience was great.

Thank you for participating Deaf community, working with us and to raise the bar. Good Job.

Everyone as panelists and Jill did an excellent job. I really enjoyed it so much.

Aidan
Aidan Mack Homepage 02.05.07 - 4:03 am #

And then there is Amy Efron Cohen, a very well known and respected Deaf blogger and vlogger who had this to say about my speech and voice at the conference:

Mike,
I wanted to say that the content of information you have presented was excellent! You made several great points and it shows that you really care about the community and wanted the best for the community. You presented yourself well with explaining why you used your voice. I have no problem with that, except being impressed how smooth you are with your presentation!

I am so glad that I am able to catch up with you and your signing skills had improved significantly since the day I met you for the first time at Gallaudet. You had no signing skills, but now you communicate effectively and effortlessly with ASL!

As for your *profile* which I instantly recognized you... well... I must admit that your profile is very, very distinct and unforgettable... *WINK*

Hope to bump into you again sometime soon and I'm glad we are in this together to make the community better for the future!
Amy Cohen Efron 02.05.07 - 6:26 pm #

The real damage to the Deaf community is for a person to go out of his or her way and accuse deaf or hard of hearing people of being "a*dists" whether directly, indirectly or by insinuation and call their opinions or actions as a "hate crime" are not only irresponsible but damaging. If a person wants to discuss the realities of "a*dism" then that's fine but to go ahead and imply or infer by insinuation about other deaf and hard of hearing people for his/her comments and opinions in a deaf/Deaf discussion forum calling them "a*dists" or charging them of a "hate crime" is not only dishonest but verges on the edge of extremism. It does nothing for the Deaf community in its relationship to the rest of the deaf and hard of hearing community (even hearing community of those with deaf/hh children) just to raise false accusations in order to satisfy an agenda.

This is the danger of using the word "a*dism" or "a*dist" as a weapon of choice. It does not solve anything in using it in such a manner . I recognize that inequalities and discrimination exist among people with various disabilities or conditions with those who are seemingly "normal." Or in this example between deaf/hh and hearing people.

Educating the public along with the help of the constantly improving communication technology to bridge that communication gap between deaf and hearing people are probably the best way to combat these inequalities that many of us deaf and hard of hearing people face everyday. It is certainly better than to lob reckless "a*dism" accusations at people by labeling them.