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.

Bullying through politics: Echoing a cause but is it right?.

There is an article written by a 15 year old high school student about his bullying experiences in classes committed by his teachers for having an alternative conservative political viewpoints in the great state of Wisconsin with the whole Governor Scott Walker and the teachers union issues in 2011.

My name is Benji Backer and I attend a public high school in Appleton, Wisconsin. I have always supported the public school system and plan to do so for the rest of my life. Many Americans who stand up for the public school system and the unions believe there is no attempt to sway opinion or that students with opposing beliefs are singled out. Unfortunately, experiences I have had with harassment and bullying prove that wrong. This is a timeline of the most extreme cases of harassment and indoctrination I have had in the three different public schools I have attended over the last three years. 

. 

Teachers presenting a one-sided political view are a problem and they need to be stopped. A school should be a place students can comfortably and safely express their beliefs, learn, grow and form their own opinions. If we want an educated Republic, we need to educate our students in a fair and balanced way.

This article immediately reminded me of my own instances of having a political discussion with a bunch of deaf contributors in Deaf Echo that had an obvious pro-union article piece they wrote called "Madison, Wisconsin - So This is Democracy: An Attack on Education" (go here if you have trouble accessing Deaf Echo's article for an archived version).  Curious, the article got my attention and I decided to contribute to the discussion offering my viewpoints and opinions as a conservative. But somehow, somewhere down the line, a deaf moderator decided that I was making "abusive comments" in my responses and comments. The new Deaf Echo webpage no longer carry comments that were made back in February of 2011.  I suspect this was due to moving the contents in Deaf Echo using a different software and didn't transport all of the older comments during the process. All 43 comments are now missing as insofar per my copy of their online discussion. Feel free to contact me for a copy just to see that I contributed responsibly. No where were my comments deemed as "abusive." Even one contributor who is a native of Wisconsin who didn't like Scott Walker and his approach about the whole teacher unions was puzzled by the moderator's assertion of my so-called writing "abusive comments" in the effort to shut me up and force me out of the discussion.

I just don't get it. I also was turned off and decided not to comment there further. I've seen comments that are disrespectful over there and it was allowed. Yours wasn't disrespectful in anyway nor was it anything that violated their policy and I've read it twice. Scratching my head too. I've seen comments on my own blog that were beyond anything they have ever experienced and I allowed them within reason because I wanted people to see discussions at play so they can understand the issues better. Heck, you and I don't even agree on this issue. And, I think you've done nothing wrong. I guess they don't have the balls.

Certainly. I was courteous and had my facts. They saw it that I was making "abusive" comments.  I saw it as their attempt to bully me out of a discussion because my contribution was not supporting their cause and rancor in their effort to "drive forward" in their home state protest efforts against Governor Scott Walker and teacher unions issue.

Candy made it clear earlier in Deaf Echo's comment section her displeasure of the obvious bias against me as an individual who had a different political opinion using no ad hominems, derogatory remarks, belittling, abusive comments and such.

Moderator: Mike McConnell has been blocked from further commenting on Deaf Echo for repeat violations of our policies. Specifically, writing abusive comments. We do not tolerate this on Deaf Echo. We love a good discussion that drives things forward, and we act aggressively to maintain a good environment for our readers and writers. Our policies can be read about more in depth on our About page.

Candy Sweetblog: I don't see any abusive comments by Mike. Gotta have two polarizing sides to have a good discussions and sometimes some things just don't "drive things forward." I don't see his comments creating a bad environment. Just sayin' Then again, it is your blog.

Nice excuse there. I do have a copy of the whole discussion made by various contributors. It's several pages long containing 43 separate comments. Ask and ye shall receive. And thank you, Candy. She exemplifies the very example that people with alternative viewpoints can debate/argue and can either disagree or agree with the points made, and still be friends.

The one thing people have to remember is that it is their blog, their website Deaf Echo. They can moderate however they see fit, whatever that fits their agenda, and whatever rules they want to make on the fly. But I can't help shake the feeling that I was somehow actually bullied out of a discussion. I seem to be the only person to have an alternative political viewpoint out of all of the people contributing there. Coincidence? Nah. Am I a bullying victim? Nah. I don't see myself as a "victim" in any sense of the word. It's really a crutch excuse to say that. What I see is that people didn't know how to debate with those having alternative, valid political viewpoints. Candy did. They didn't. Their Achilles Heel was to get overly defensive and decided to bully me out by making up some obscure reason that I "violated" their posting policy and that my comments were "abusive." Kind of like charging me as being racist when instead it's the policies I disagree, not because of skin color.

Making up excuses that my comments were "abusive" only goes to show that, yes, bullying through politics, even veiled, can and does happen to anyone, even to a 15 year old student standing up to a bullying teacher who have control of his class and any political discussions.

I believe that the majority of my teachers (and teachers in general) are professional and leave their personal political views out of the classroom. There are a few teachers that have been extremely inspirational to me. Unfortunately, most is not enough. Teachers that do bring a one-sided view of politics into the classroom are attempting to influence students’ opinions. They want to teach us what to think instead of how to think.

The intimidation has not swayed me or made me cower from my beliefs, but I worry about the other students. I'm certain I am not the only one that has experienced this sort of intimidation. My teachers have always talked about bullying, including bullying homosexuals and how wrong it is. I agree one hundred percent. They shouldn’t be bullied, nor should anyone else. But if homosexuals can get equal treatment, why can’t I? Why can’t my conservative friends? If teachers want bullying to end with homosexuals, other races or religious beliefs, they should want it to end with every type of bullying possible, including political views.

Sounds familiar?


Addendum:  Silly me. I should've checked the Wayback Machine to see if it has archived the particular article in question along with the saved (43) comments. Here it is. 

You be the judge.

Addendum II: If you happened to be curious about results of Gov. Walker post win recall election effort go here and see the differences.

The Deafening of America

In a Facebook conversation it got around to the use of the word "Deaf" and how one court is trying to avoid using a noun that create different classes of people such as deaf and hard of hearing. I asserted that by saying "Deaf" will not work to define a group of people with hearing loss since the word "deaf" has been far too long been ingrained to mean one thing. Same goes for "Deaf" as a more recent definition coined by Padden and Humphries back in the 1970s. I have broached this topic a few times in the past.

A comparison was used for the word "Deaf" by using "Blind/blind" in making a case. A term used by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB.ORG):

".... all of their members to be blind regardless of visual acuity."

To them it creates a "classless" non-discriminatory definition within their own class of people (B/blind) from those with normal range of vision even though 90% of their members happens to be not legally blind. I'd like to see NAD admit that some of their members are not legally deaf as well even though I suspect some of the NAD officers are pushing for the whole "Deaf" wording. Just a suspicion. Not that it's true or anything like that.

This "Blind" definition is still discriminatory. What I mean is that it still show differences between classes of people from the "haves and have-nots," essentially so.  But using the "Blind" description/definition will not work just as "Deaf" will not work. What I am talking about are what people see themselves as.

Let's take the mildest form of hearing loss whether it's in one one or both ears they would not consider themselves as "deaf."

The meaning of the word "deaf" has been ingrained for far too long to mean one thing and that evokes that a deaf person means the person cannot hear a darned thing.  In retrospect using "Deaf" won't work to include all people with all range and types of hearing loss. The same goes for "blind" which evokes a description of one who cannot see a single thing. People see "deaf" and "blind" as the extreme end of hearing and visual (acuity) loss, not the mild types.  Instead of that, people try and use an alternate "safe" terms like "legally blind" and "legally deaf" to discern the differences but even that can present problems, too.  When one says "blind" to what does the term evokes for you? Same for "deaf." What does the term evokes for you? Perspectives vary.

There are people with 20/20 vision who do wear glasses. Are they blind? Hardy. Saying "legally blind" emphasizes the extremity of visual loss as opposed to simply saying "blind" which doesn't help much here. Do people with mild hearing loss considered as "legally deaf"?  Even if the person is 1 to 5 db above normal hearing range? Or even 10 dB? The type of accommodation and function between people with vision loss and hearing loss are quite different in level and scope. With glasses you don't miss things visually but with hearing aids you can miss things such as words by not understanding every spoken syllable. There is an inherent problem with the word "deaf" (saying "D"eaf doesn't help either) to include every single people with any amount of hearing loss, even by 1 or 5 dB above normal hearing range. Just won't work. The same goes with the word "blind."

If the court want to create a word that does not break into two different classes of people (e.g. deaf and hard of hearing) then create a word, a noun, that does not carry a stigma. A word that's neutral in meaning. A word that doesn't create a misunderstanding (e.g. deaf, Deaf, blind, Blind). In other words, find something else other than those words because they won't work to fit all people with hearing loss. Just like "Blind." It won't work. Find a noun that fits and describe people with a certain condition. Even by saying "Deaf" is still discriminatory but the word does discriminate between those who cannot hear to those who can hear. It does create a separate class. The problem is the amount of functional differences. Same goes for "Blind."

It's true that we fit in the category of people with hearing loss. There's no denying that.  The same goes for those that fit in the category of people with vision loss. But are all of them blind? There's already an inherent problem in using that word, capitalized or not. Not matter what words to use to define a group, it's still discriminating between classes of the haves and have nots, essentially so. People use other terms like "mobility-challenged" instead of "crippled" or "handicapped." But saying "mobility-challenged" evokes extremity of a condition but it's certainly far better than the other two denigrating words. I'm older and can't run like a young teen in a track event but I'm still quick and nimble. Am I "mobility-challenged"?

What about "visually-challenged"? Or "hearing-challenged." Or "hearing impaired" which is about the hearing that is impaired, not the person. Same for "visually impaired." What is the best PC word around to avoid "classes" of definitions and not offend or confuse anyone? Saying "Deaf" will not work.

Good luck with that one.

Deaf pianist donates $2 million to CSUF

A deaf person who also plays the piano donates $2 milllion dollars to California State University, Fresno.

Retired architect, vineyard owner and piano player Robert Duncan Nicol, who has been deaf since birth, says he is living proof "that deaf people, indeed, can do many things." That includes being a generous benefactor. Nicol on Friday gave $2 million for The Silent Garden program in the Communicative Disorders and Deaf Studies department at California State University, Fresno. The donation will help deaf and hearing-impaired children, their parents and teachers, as well as adults with hearing loss.

Inspirational to see another deaf pianist. Also, a very generous person!

KVP takes a pill and the D/B Fiasco?

KVP. You know her blog. But, alas, the blog is no longer there.

Blog has been removed.  

Sorry, the blog at karenvonpills.blogspot.com has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs.

Not that the blog was important or anything (see the old archived piece here), it was an odd ranting blog that sort of spiraled out of control in various places in her blog. Not all of them, mind you. KVP's blog appeared as a blip on the internet horizon and then disappeared.  The last blog was on March 25, 2013. Four days ago. The last post showed a picture of a man holding up a business card that says, "When people starts (sic) talking against you....Means you are growing!" And then her blog disappears. How ironic. But you can still read it via Google Reader by subscribing by typing in the internet address to her blogsite. And read what you may have missed. It's all there. Defamation and all. The good, bad and the ugly.

Next.

BTW, I heard about the latest so called "rift," if you call it that or true at all, about what's going on at Gallaudet University.   I believe it had to do with two Deaf-blind candidates who were not chosen as a speaker for an upcoming event but a person of color was chosen instead. If there's any truth to that we'll have to wait. Some believe this may be due to the McCaskill brouhaha last semester and so an "appeasement" was perhaps made towards people of color by picking a different speaker.  Again, I'm hearing this through the grapevine.  Regardless, the deaf/blind have it hard when it comes to communication access even at Gallaudet University. I did several blogs about deaf/blind over the years including this fascinating deaf/blind pianist since I'm a ragtime pianist myself, of course. In one of the blogs I discussed adding captions to signed videos such as "No subtitles for Patty" and "The advantages of subtitles on vlogs. It was surprising how so many deaf vloggers groused at the idea of adding captions/subtitles to their blogs.  One deaf/blind commenter said something profound about being deaf/blind in a community full of sighted people like at Gallaudet University.

Please keep in mind, the Deaf-Blind community is really at the bottom of the totem pole, struggling to be seen, heard and recognized. It does not really help that our peers, the Deaf community, responds in this manner whether they realize it or not.

Bottom of the totem pole is an understatement. They continue to be marginalized in all aspects of life, including at colleges. If you want "Community Accountability" then this should be one of them according to the Tactile Mind blogger who is Deaf/blind herself.

I think it’s time that the Deaf community learned about accountability – towards its very members – grassroots, women, men, the educated, around the world, the blind, the DeafPlus, et cetera – and truly learned how to INTEGRATE that into their livelihoods.  

Because you might as well get used to me butting into your lives with my lovely hands tactiling yours in FORM OF COMMUNICATION using the very COMMON method: SIGN LANGUAGE. Any sign language around thw world. That can be said for others, however, this opinion article is based on my experiences and views being an international lecturer meeting hundreds if not thousands of Deafblind people around the world who say that they grew up Deaf, but now that they’re Deafblind, they don’t feel part of the Deaf community anymore.  

My answer to that?  

It takes two sides to come HALF WAY to communicate. The Deafblind people have to come halfway and educate the others how to communicate with them; The Deaf people have to come halfway to learn how to support them, how to integrate them within the Deaf community, to ensure that rejection is not a verb in anyone’s language.

Indeed.

Community accountability does not mean challenging a deaf person to prove that she's a deaf-blind person. Only the most crudely obnoxious and uncaring people would even do that. Community Accountability means that you take the effort to include them in your "Deaf world" such as providing subtitles to your signing videos.

As a Deaf-Blind person, I truly appreciate subtitling in vlogs because I am legally blind now. It does help a lot to be still involved in the v/blogosphere with the subtitles. If there wasn't any, I wouldn't complain because I visit a lot of blogs.

Patty's not alone on wanting to feel welcomed and involved in these signing vlogs if only they included subtitles so the d/b can understand what's was being said for those with limited vision and are still able to read.

I'm going to respond generally here.   

When a vlog isn't subtitled, I admit I do feel I miss out a lot of what the person is signing. ASL is my language. I do rely on my DH to tactile to me what the vlogger signs.   

A suggestion if I may offer to any vlogger that wishes to help the Deaf-Blind community with subtitling. Yellow fonts with the black background is actually much better to read than the standard white fonts.   

The white fonts is just too strong and some words can be missed out. Yellow is softer and words are easier to read.   

Please keep in mind, the Deaf-Blind community is really at the bottom of the totem pole, struggling to be seen, heard and recognized. It does not really help that our peers, the Deaf community, responds in this manner whether they realize it or not.   

Tactile smile with hugs, Patty

That's the crux of it. Easy to understand and quite a reasonable request for deaf people who like to do their signing vlogs but not include subtitles/captions. Spare me the inane excuses for not doing it. Just admit that you're lazy and don't care for doing it and I'll accept that honest appraisal of yourself for those who are completely capable of doing so versus those who are not as tech-savvy or English-savvy.  The least they can do is own up to their demands of others this "Community Accountability" but yet they become one of the biggest violators of the lot when it comes to their signing vlogs by shoving the deaf/blind out of the loop.  It just drips with hypocrisy. Kind of like signing a public pact to not cyberbully but in the end becomes one of the biggest cyberbullies around. Do yourselves a favor with this "Community Accountability," include the Deaf-blind into your world and stop being an ass for once with stupid excuses to match with your behaviors.

A video message on cyberbullying

Thought of the Day.

Big mystery question of the day. Why do some people to my blog and leave comments about how great "deafhood" is or something along that line but refuse to leave their real name behind? Are they embarrassed to show their faces about a philosophical concept? The problem with "deafhood" is the people who don't walk the walk and instead become walking hypocrites. A common sight, I'd say. If it makes people feel good to tout it like a trophy, be my guest. I prefer the most simplest way without any baggage or political correctness and that is accept people for who they are...not about what they are. It doesn't matter if they have a hearing loss or not. I have said this many times in my blogs in the past and elsewhere. If people are so doggone crazy about "deafhood" then why the anonymity when commenting in my blog in the effort to advertise on how great it is? Just like anonymous Matt.

That's my "Thought of the Day."

Providing an argument vs ad hominems

Ad homenims do make an argument. In other words calling people names in the effort to belittle and/or denigrate them in an argument/debate do nothing other than to conspicously flag themsselves for others to see that they are unable to make any compelling arguments in their defense. They are unable to simply agree to disagree and would rather make parting shots on the way out in a vain effort to protect their already fragile and questionable ego. During the AB2072 protest period a few years back compelling arguments were made for the support of AB2072 but for some of the detractors they were bent on using ad homenims instead thinking it would shut up supporters of AB2072. So severe it has gotten it has led to some serious cyberbullying responses such as contacting employers of AB2072 supporters the effort to shut them up. That was an extreme form of ad hominem manifested in the form of pure hate with no logical reason for doing so. Those are usually the hallmark signatures of a cyberbully or have the potential of becoming one. This is a problem with people who have the tendency to be emotionally laden to attack without provocation because they are unable to make compelling or persuasive arguements. Because of certain insecurity issues or other internal issues they feel compelled to attack arguments with ad homenims because they have no compelling arguments to give. Best to simply disagree and provide compelling reasons in support of your own arguments just as I have done describing the existence of "adult cyberbullying."

Anonymous Matt

Below is my response to "Matt," an unknown commenter, in which we had a lively discussion in a previous blog, "Death of Deafhood?" I decided to put my response here since it would be too long to respond in a comment box that already limits a certain number of words allowed.


Matt: 1.) It was never his journey. It was a research conducted by Paddy (he was an oralist, btw.) in both the states and UK.

Mike: It was a thesis of his, I know. He related his own experiences through his own research on "finding deafhood" and to be used as a "guide" for others to use. In fact, in his Acknowledgement page he said and I quote, "My persnal journey in search of self and Deafhood has been assisted or supported by so many people....."; "Every word of this text and my life has been infused by some special sources largely hidden from view...."'; and "And so the 25-year journey arrives at this plateau." Doing research was his own journey of discovery. He also peppers a lot of his personal experiences such as explaining, "Being orally mainstreamed to a secondary school level of English literacy, I am situated outside this experience. English remains my first language. Twenty-six years of BSL use hsa brought me 'inside' to some degree, but mastering every...."; and "My account is focused mainly on the UK..." Again, I am aware it's a research/thesis of his regarding the understanding of deafness and self, and the journey about it. I have already said that "deafhood" is simply a concept. A philosopical musing of his imbedded in his research based on his own observations...others and his.



Matt: 2.) Yes, the term "Deafhood" wasn't around back then, but the feeling definitely was. Take the class to understand more.

Mike: No thanks. Until people actually walk the walk and include everybody with hearing loss, only then would I reconsider.  Their past actions betray them.  Inclusivity was never in their vocabulary because it would undoubtedly betray their agenda.



Matt: 3.) It's really really obvious right now that you have zero idea of what Deafhood is, and their participants are. The statement of yours - the one that says that Deafhood divides the community - couldn't be any further from the truth. Not saying this to throw a jab, but to make it really clear.

Mike: Matt, before I go further, why the anonymity on using your first name, if that is your real name? Secondly, "deafhood" is simply a concept. I have covered this many times over the years in my blogging since 2006 when "deafhood" first surfaced. Maybe what you may not realize is the self-hypocrisy at work within a community?

I never said "deafhood" divides the community. Rather, it's the people who insist on belonging in a closed society as I have explained numerous times in my blogs over the years. It's the people who insist on political correctness. It's the people who try to move the goal post. It's the people who claimed "deafhood" helped them "understand" yet attack those who have other opinions or disagrees with their assertions or opinions. I have said many times in my blog, it's much easier to simply respect deaf/hh people for who they are and not about what they are. This is much better than politicizing "deafhood" and obsessing so deeply about the inequality of life that each of us has experienced on different levels and scales. I'd say, please, walk the walk first. If you believe it so deeply in the gospel of "deafhood" why the anonymity?



Matt: Right now you're judging it by a glimpse of the book cover. I suggest you take the workshop. I guarantee you that there will be a diverse group of people in that room with you. There were a few of oralists in the class I took. After the class was done, we felt closer to one other.

Mike: No. I have researched this. Discussed with those who did take those workshops. Some were culturally deaf from deaf families. The problem is that in America (rather than the UK) certain groups of people took the concept of "deafhood" and politicized it every which way possible in the name of political correctness for their deaf culture. Some believe there's an agenda afoot.  My view is, as I have said many times in my blogs over the years on "deafhood," that a person's journey is deeply personal and private. Each of our own journey is unique from the time we are born to the time we die. There are some overlaps on our experiences, sure, but we do not travel the same journey as with the next person. Our paths simply intersects at various points in time and see things the same way but it doesn't mean both journeys are the same from beginning to end. Simply put.



Matt: Deafhood is basically about the fact every Deaf person shares one thing in common - deafness. You cannot deny that.

Mike: I never denied that. Please show me where I have said that. I challenge you to find somewhere in my 2000+ plus blog entries that I denied that we do not share a common trait and that is hearing loss (as opposed to your "Deaf").  Use my blog's search feature to find what you are claiming. Good luck.

The problem here is when people try and politicize "deafhood" to fit their own agenda. Which is why "Deafhood? No thanks" FB came about. It's better to simply respect people for who they are rather than on what they are (i.e. Deaf/deaf/hard of hearing). The focus should not be about our disabilities (i.e. our deafness) but as a human being who go through our own unique journey. Seriously, Matt, I have covered this many times since 2006. If you like "deafhood" and it makes you feel happy and secure then knock yourself out. As for me, no thanks.



Matt: Deafhood Foundation has made it clear that they're still in their formative stages and is willing to hear suggestions on how to make things better. Your question is valid, the one with why there is no interpreter provided. Butch Zein, the instructor, actually mentioned that in our class and they're working on it - thought you'd like to know that tidbit.

Mike: Certainly, they're in their formative stages. I have provided a challenge in my blogs several times for them and that is to walk the walk regarding inclusivity of anyone who has a hearing loss and whether they know ASL or not, or are AGBell members, HLAA members, strict oralists, SEE users, CUERs, and so forth to discuss this "deafhood journey" of yours. And ensure that they receive the same communication access as the next person who may or may not know sign language. They have not done that nor will they do it whole scale because they have deeply politicized the whole deaf culture thing intermingling with cochlear implant issues, language development, educational settings, oral trainings, audiologists, the medical field and terminologies, and so on. In short, they made themselves completely incompatible with the rest of the 98% of the hearing loss population (36 million people with hearing loss). Or from your viewpoint you could say that the 98% made themselves completely incompatible with the 2% of the people who are culturally deaf. It'd be a farce to fully expect they all will embrace your new goal moving post the new term "Deaf" to mean them, too. It'd be just as horrifying for you if they expect you will accept the word "hearing impaired." Sorry. It simply will not work as long as people continue to politicize the whole concept of deaf culture to fit their own agenda, whatever they may be.



Matt: And re: my usage of Deaf for everyone. You have mentioned in the past that you love the English language. The beauty of languages: they have the ability to evolve over time. Words change meanings. You may be right, Deaf has it's own meanings. I've made my definition clear - and I hope it changes the definition for everyone. I do not want people to feel that they're a lesser Deaf person by putting the d label on them. If they want to label theirselves as deaf, that's fine with me. It's not my job to decide for them.

Mike: Consider that not all of the 98% of the hearing loss population (36 million) will accept the new word "Deaf" to mean them, too. Especially when it's already been defined to mean culturally deaf people only.  It simply won't work expecting the masses will agree to the new term. This is all about serving their own agenda regarding their deaf culture, ASL, deaf education, and language development. We saw that hideous development during the AB2072 debacle. That's "deafhood" for you instead of considering a more open society concept.



Matt: This will be my last response re this topic. I really hope you take the opportunity to take the class one day. I guarantee you will take something with you from the class.

Mike: I have no interest because they have shown not to "walk the walk" and prefer to keep to their own status quo.  Like I said, if you like using the feel good "deafhood" term and feel secure about it, then by no means do not stop on account of me. Go ahead and spread your "gospel."  But remember, Pres. Hurtwitz re-iterated the key point that ICED issued a global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication" in the education of deaf and hard of hearing people.  "Deafhood" is an ideological concept born of a culturally deaf person specifically and targeted to mostly a limited culturally deaf audience. So, therein lies the conundrum.

Cyberbullying Email Group Discussion from 2010

Here's a copy of a cyberbullying email discussion I was in a few years ago. I believe with what has been happening lately warrants the releasing of this group email discussion for public consumption. 

A known deaf person personally invited me and numerous other well known deaf people in the community to contribute in a private email group discussion on cyberbullying.  All names have been changed using initials only. Some initials do not reflect the same first letter of any names (e.g. first name or last name). Some initials do correspond with either a first or last name. Other initials I have purposedly mixed them up. Some style of writings were slightly modified to avoid detection. Signature lines were deleted to avoid identifying who said what. The purpose here is not about the names or who was doing the discussing. The purpose is to show what went on during those email discussions. This email copy represent about 1/3th of the discussions that went on. It's a long piece of email discussion that I cobbled together for your viewing information.

Again, this is not about names.

This is about a discussion on cyberbullying that went on in a group email discussion. I plan to release more of these email discussions at a later time. For what it was worth the discussion eventually broke down with accusations cropping up and misunderstandings. Some opted out early into the discussion.  This is a long email copy with the opportunity to learn what was discussed by various deaf/hh individuals.

Enjoy.


Note: Two double line breaks signifies a new thread. A single double line break separates comments.



===============================
　

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:28 PM, “S”wrote:

Greetings all,

Lately the subject of cyber attacks and bullying has come up on Deafread and Aslrocks. As you know, its a subject I feel real strongly about and one that I have ZERO tolerance.

Was thinking, since many of you likewise feel the same way, the only way to end this cycle is by taking a stand to say "stop". Such bullying tactics have lead to many individuals being verbally attacked or trashed on blogs and vlogs. Employers have been contacted, families have been hurt, and self-esteem has been destroyed. Fear gives in, and paranoia sets, to the point some don't even blog or vlog anymore. Ridiculous to see oppressive actions on our own community. Its one thing to disagree with one another, its an entirely other thing to set out on a witchhunt. We could achieve far more working together in harmony, in unity, in the best interest of our future generations of Deaf babies and children.

Hence, this message is a simple request. Many of you are aware, and participated in an article I wrote about Zero Tolerance on Racism, which included A*dism.

I would like to do something similar, and get a quote from you about zero tolerance for cyber-bullying attacks, witchhunts, etc.

If you are real serious about seeing such attacks end, then I hope you are willing to show it by participating. By showing quotes from a diverse wide-variety of folks with different backgrounds, my goal is to show the Community that no matter who we are, no matter what we do, no matter that we may strongly disagree on issues, and/or even actually agree on an issue (here's hoping :) for that matter, our discourses, even heated discussions can be healthy, but cyberbullying is not. I think it behooves us to be responsible to ensure such does not continue to happen and such is why, we need to demonstrate this ourselves -- not separately, but together all on the same "page".

That's the gist of it. I look up to you all as leaders in your own right, the passion you bring to shed more light on various issues to help educate each other. This unified effort is to combat one thing, put an end to cyberbullying.

I hope you agree to send me your thoughts by way of a quote. If you think someone else should be added to join this effort, by all means, include them. The more who do join, the less the divide is amongst us.

I would like to post all of our quotes in one article, perhaps as a guest blogger on one of your sites. Would be neat if someone could also asl the piece once its done. The beauty of doing this is to ensure everyone understands one thing we can all agree on: Zero tolerance for cyber attacks and bullying. Such message can do well to actually strengthen our Deaf Community's ties. Who knows? We don't know until we try.

============================

“L” wrote, 10/06/10

　

There's actually a LOT of history to this effort already. You probably know most of it, but for those who don't, I'd start with: Deaf-Hope The Pact (link).

J, do you have more stories about the already-checkered history of this effort? I remember that X was involved, as was R.

I'm not even sure what ZERO tolerance means, after the fact...

- L.

　

=======================


“P” wrote, 10/06/10:

　

Sounds like a good plan. Article for which reading literature q so I'd know who the audience will be.


==========================================

“B” wrote, 10/06/10:

　

My question is simply this: when does it end? I mean, we've come to a full circle in little more than a year. People will do what they want to do -- no amount of leaders can come together and change that.

It is kind of funny how we are asking them to learn something from this. I think we should ask this of ourselves: what are we learning from this experience??

I think if we keep responding to this, it will only fuel the fire.

As an individual among those who are being attacked (cyberbullied, if you may), I think it is best to let it go.

Someone has to or the cycle will never end.

======================================

J wrote, 10/06/10:

B,

Good food for thought.

Which strategy do we pay the higher price? Which strategy do we risk more?

We know for a fact that in recent weeks, gay youth suicides are on the rise because of cyber-bullying. There is now a call to action within the LGBT community.

Do we remain silent with hopes of not adding fuel to the fire?

Or do we risk seeing Deaf people commit suicide because of hatred/ridicule they experience online?

J.


=================================
=================================

　

S wrote, 10/06/10:

Thank you P! Audience are ppl who read blogs and vlogs. Could be in writing, could be as a video. Whole point is to show a variety of us. L, actually, it started long before the Deafhope pact.


J, and other Deaf womyn and myself posted abt putting an end to cyberbullying on Deaf-CommUNITY blogsite abt 4 or 5yrs ago. Zero tolerance meaning we all take a stand together to state we as individuals do not accept cyber-attacks and bullying. Real simple actually, and in our own words, short n sweet.


S.


===================================

“S” wrote, 10/06/10:

Excellent point J!


===============================
“J” wrote, 7 Oct 2010:



B,

Good food for thought.

Which strategy do we pay the higher price? Which strategy do we risk more?

We know for a fact that in recent weeks, gay youth suicides are on the rise because of cyber-bullying. There is now a call to action within the LGBT community.

Do we remain silent with hopes of not adding fuel to the fire?

Or do we risk seeing Deaf people commit suicide because of hatred/ridicule they experience online?

-J

========================================


“B” wrote, 6 Oct 2010:




P,

My question is simply this: when does it end? I mean, we've come to a full circle in little more than a year. People will do what they want to do -- no amount of leaders can come together and change that.

It is kind of funny how we are asking them to learn something from this. I think we should ask this of ourselves: what are we learning from this experience??

I think if we keep responding to this, it will only fuel the fire.

As an individual among those who are being attacked (cyberbullied, if you may), I think it is best to let it go.

Someone has to or the cycle will never end.
============================================



“P” wrote, Oct 6, 2010:

Sounds like a good plan. Article for which reading literature q so I'd know who the audience will be.


====================================
====================================

　

“L” wrote to “S“, 10/06/10”

Actually, I'm feeling more in line with what B has been saying...

This is structural. It's bigger than us taking a stand. It's a difference between how we each see the force of our own actions against others versus the force of others' actions against us.

It seems related to the whole thing of oppressors not being able to see that they are oppressing, and the oppressed seeing every twitch, with us each having way too much of both oppressor and oppressed inside. Both blinding and blinded...

What I'm seeing out there is, "Yeah? Well, your guy did THIS!" "Oh yeah? Well your other guy did something worse to us!" "Oh yeah?..."

Breaking the cycle means somebody has to be ABLE to say stop and actually HAVE it stop.

At this point, I'm not very hopeful...

- L

==================================
==================================

　

“S” wrote to “L” 10/06/10

In isolation perhaps diff ppl have said stop. But all of us together in one place taking a stand? Nope.


This would be one helluva strong message to our Community. Every effort counts in my opinion. Won't know til we try, eh?
=================================

“L” wrote on 6 Oct 2010 21:12:05 -0700


Actually, I'm feeling more in line with what B has been saying...

This is structural. It's bigger than us taking a stand. It's a difference between how we each see the force of our own actions against others versus the force of others' actions against us.

It seems related to the whole thing of oppressors not being able to see that they are oppressing, and the oppressed seeing every twitch, with us each having way too much of both oppressor and oppressed inside. Both blinding and blinded...

What I'm seeing out there is, "Yeah? Well, your guy did THIS!" "Oh yeah? Well your other guy did something worse to us!" "Oh yeah?..."

Breaking the cycle means somebody has to be ABLE to say stop and actually HAVE it stop.

At this point, I'm not very hopeful...

- L

===================================
===================================

“B” wrote to “S” on 10/06/10”

Then, this is your fight.

All I ask from you is to respect my decision to let this go.

Thank you and good luck.

====================================


“S” wrote on Oct 6, 2010:


In isolation perhaps diff ppl have said stop. But all of us together in one place taking a stand? Nope.


This would be one helluva strong message to our Community. Every effort counts in my opinion. Won't know til we try, eh?

=================================
=================================


“L” wrote to “B” and group, 10/06/10”

“S”

It TAKES all of us to agree, but there IS no "all of us" to agree.

There is a really fundamental dynamic going on here that we're trying to sort of wish away.

B, can you explain it any better?

- L

====================================


“L” wrote on 6 Oct 2010


Actually, I'm feeling more in line with what B has been saying...

This is structural. It's bigger than us taking a stand. It's a difference between how we each see the force of our own actions against others versus the force of others' actions against us.

It seems related to the whole thing of oppressors not being able to see that they are oppressing, and the oppressed seeing every twitch, with us each having way too much of both oppressor and oppressed inside. Both blinding and blinded...

What I'm seeing out there is, "Yeah? Well, your guy did THIS!" "Oh yeah? Well your other guy did something worse to us!" "Oh yeah?..."

Breaking the cycle means somebody has to be ABLE to say stop and actually HAVE it stop.

At this point, I'm not very hopeful...

- L

=======================

“S” wrote on Oct 6, 2010
Excellent point J!

=================

“J” wrote to “B” on im Brune" 7 Oct 2010:


B,

Good food for thought.

Which strategy do we pay the higher price? Which strategy do we risk more?

We know for a fact that in recent weeks, gay youth suicides are on the rise because of cyber-bullying. There is now a call to action within the LGBT community.

Do we remain silent with hopes of not adding fuel to the fire?

Or do we risk seeing Deaf people commit suicide because of hatred/ridicule they experience online?

J


===================================
===================================

“J3” wrote to group on 10/06/10

　

Thanks S for including us. I would like to take some time to read this and all responses. This is not easy one after what we have gone through. Who wants to go through this again? It may be easier just to stay away from cyberworld. But heck no, you are right, we can do better than this.

So which is which... ummm...

===================================
===================================

“P” wrote to group on 10/07/10:

Greetings S et al:

I want to thank you for initiating this collective response. Internet defamation, attacks, harassment via promoting falsehoods and inciting others to attack folks via their workplace, affiliations, and government agencies unjustly is definitely not cool when do you need a quote by?

Also - an ASL and/or international version is very important so if any way i can assist - holler. I understand the temptation to let it drop, to be a turtle. This does not make things go away - it just smolders or emboldens. Too many good voices have gone silent - too many good souls have been hurt. MLK Jr said A man dies when he does not take a stand for that which is just, right and good.

====================================
====================================


“J4” wrote to “J” and “P” 10/07/10:

　

J- I agree with you. S, thank you for starting this important dialogue again


We have nothing to lose by taking a stand together. DeafHope did have a public petition created by a Deaf lawyer to stop Cyberbully together as a community during 2008 at our Tea Party. X was the first to sign it along with Y. Both S and I signed it as well. We did experience backlash for starting the petition but it created a much needed dialogue. It was a proactive statement by us as a community. It was worth it.

Now I think it is time for us to step it up with our personal statements before we lose a Deaf person to suicide. Sure we will experience backlash but we are all in it together to support one another. Prevention instead of reaction goes a long way.

-”J4”

===================================
===================================


“B” wrote to group on 10/07/10:


S and everyone else,

Since my last email asking that my wish to let it go to be respected, I got three emails disagreeing with me, but with serious implications. First, I do not appreciate the emails by J2 and J, I felt they were truly disrespectful to my decision by implying that I may have little or no regard for other Deaf people's lives. It is very insulting.

Consider this perspective: I am respecting the lives of other individuals by not thrusting my opinions of their actions uninvited. It begs the question as to why exactly anyone would want to be travel agents for guilt trips on those who have no desire for these travel packages?

By refusing to respect my decision to let it go rather than to fight it with implications that I contribute to the suicides within our community can and should be construed as an early form of cyberbullying.

As for P, once again I felt disrespected. Rather than agreeing to disagree, my position is now considered "turtle" (which I assume is a thinly veiled analogy to cowardice) and throwing in a quote, by Dr. King no less, saying I'm less of a man than those who wish to fight this? Another example of cyberbullying in its early form.

Sometimes it takes a bigger person to take the brunt of it and let it go than to look for retaliation and being self-righteous.

If you feel it is necessary to bash my decision to let it go, then, please remove my name from this email list.

Once more, thank you and good luck!

-B
===================================================

“S” wrote to group on 10/07/10

　

I would much prefer to see this request done in each site...DR, DVTV, and ASLrocks before final quotes are posted on a blog and done in a video format with ASL and captions. I would feel better knowing that this is an effort to reach out to all and that no one is excluded. Perhaps do request via other deaf forums as well.

Also a message to start fresh, meaning - attempts to rehash is not productive. However, there will be some who might demand apology before being able to start fresh. So we do need to keep that in mind....

I do see why B thinks it might not work, because there will be ppl who feel that they have not reached some sort of closure....

Just sharing my perception...

-S

======================================
======================================

“S” wrote to group on 10/07/10

Also....i am of the opinion that with these request we probably should refrain from using any key words that have cause division.

======================================
======================================

“M” wrote to group on 10/07/10:

　

B,

Your mentioning "implications" of cyberbullying raises the fundamental questions I'm having about this call to action and reflections.

I believe this call by S although noble is too superficial for what is truly needing in this community both in and out of Deaf v/ blogosphere.

What is needing I personally believe as someone who's deeply entrenched in Deaf Cultural and ASL Studies dealing for so many years with all kinds of people both Deaf and hearing is recognizing and respecting the Deaf-centered definitions, social rules, historical ways, and positively potential ways of dealing with crisis. They exist and do work but have been badly battered in the "open" via DeafRead, and yes other "open" Deaf discussion arenas.

Can we begin to discuss cultural as well as personal interpretations of what consists of an insult? What is considered impolite? What is considered insignificant to some but a great insult to one or few? What is considered respect to us or is the same thing considered
hypocrisy to others?

Is pointing out untruths/lies a necessary "insult" or embarrassement that must be avoided? Does it have to do with confidence that comes with a healthy cultural connections with people around us or does it has to do with belittling others or even another culture/language?

Etc etc.

I need to stop now but I know this could become something good. However just quoting and shouting out "stop cyberbullying" won't work. Cuz we seem to have different ideas and ways to deal with it an we haven't even have a collective agreement to cherish and respect our Deafhood, history, Deaf-centered work and fight against a*dism. Etc etc.

========================================

“B” wrote on Oct 7, 2010:

S and everyone else,

Since my last email asking that my wish to let it go to be respected, I got three emails disagreeing with me, but with serious implications. First, I do not appreciate the emails by J2 and J, I felt they were truly disrespectful to my decision by implying that I may have little or no regard for other Deaf people's lives.


It is very insulting.

Consider this perspective: I am respecting the lives of other individuals by not thrusting my opinions of their actions uninvited. It begs the question as to why exactly anyone would want to be travel agents for guilt trips on those who have no desire for these
travel packages?

By refusing to respect my decision to let it go rather than to fight it with implications that I contribute to the suicides within our community can and should be construed as an early form of cyberbullying.

As for P’s email, once again I felt disrespected. Rather than agreeing to disagree, my position is now considered "turtle" (which I assume is a thinly veiled analogy to cowardice) and throwing in a quote, by Dr. King no less, saying I'm less of a man than those who wish to fight this? Another example of cyberbullying in its early form.

Sometimes it takes a bigger person to take the brunt of it and let it go than to look for retaliation and being self-righteous.

If you feel it is necessary to bash my decision to let it go, then, please remove my name from this email list.

Once more, thank you and good luck!

-B

======================================
======================================

　

M2 wrote to “S” on 10/07/10:

As a reader of mostly bloggers with an occasional trip to vlogging sites that were references in the blogs, I have my thoughts that are really irrevelant to this discussion because I do not have a clue as to what happened in 2008. I was not there.

So, I do not know if what I saw constitute "cyberbulling." I think people do it to themselves. I read cyberbulling blogs and do not respond because it is so off base and borders on ludicrous. I can choose to respond and engage in battling words, or I can choose to ignore and be at peace with my decision not to respond. That's where I can understand B's thoughts.

I think we all have to assume responsibility for responding and for engaging in potentially cyberbulling activities when we choose to.

I also think we all ought to be more ready to explain our points of view that could be confusing to others. If I write words that I eventually realize were hurtful, I would apologize quickly.

I don't think our problem is cyberbulling per se, I think the problem is that bloggers/vloggers are not able to look at themselves and acknowledge whether they have had been cyberbullying or wrote harsh words or were confusing readers or what have you.

That happens on both ends of the spectrum. There's no respect for different points of view, and there's no respect for experiences that are so different from the bloggers or vloggers. Does that constitute cyberbullying? I don't know.

It could be ignorance and a hint of arrogance....they think they know better what we need to do.

I think it is a world that invites both awe and repulsion. What do we do about that? I don't know the answer either..

The bloggers and vloggers seem to have ALL of the answers; honestly, I marvel at their knowing everything in life. I wish I knew as much as they do.

M2
========================================

“S” wrote on Oct 7, 2010:

I would much prefer to see this request done in each site...DR, DVTV, and ASLrocks before final quotes are posted on a blog and done in a video format with ASL and captions. I would feel better knowing that this is an effort to reach out to all and that no one is excluded. Perhaps do request via other deaf forums as well.

Also a message to start fresh, meaning - attempts to rehash is not productive. However, there will be some who might demand apology before being able to start fresh. So we do need to keep that in mind....

I do see why B thinks it might not work, because there will be ppl who feel that they have not reached some sort of closure....

Just sharing my perception...

=======================================
=======================================

　

“L” respond to “S” and group on 10/07/10:

Do you think quotes will stop S2? If S2 continues, what are we supposed to do? It only takes one backsliding cyberbully for the whole online community to be thrust back into the same old dynamic!

Can ANY of you get S2 to stop?

I felt that the most recent exposure of what S2's capable of doing was informative to a couple of those who HAD felt that S2 was the "good guy" here, and now realize that he's a BIG part of the problem and needs no longer to have this behavior supported...

J5 has realized that he had crossed the line by calling people names, and has taken steps so that he does not react publicly to taunting such as that S2 did AGAIN yesterday, but that will not be enough going forward if folks like S2 are given a free pass by their friends.

Part of the problem is, as B noted, that cyberbullying is easier to see done TO you than it is to see when YOU are starting to cross over the line, so there needs to be feedback from trusted friends in the backchannel and the ability to actually take HEED of this feedback whenever one of us has crossed the line.

But that takes the "society" part of the "open society". An "open society" that overemphasizes the "open" at the expense of "society" becomes exactly the sort of "Lord of the Flies" situation we have right now. CAN S2's friends tell him when he's crossed the line, and have S2 reign himself in?

- L

========================================
========================================

“X” wrote to group on 10/07/10

The idealist in me

I have always been against cyberbullying and never have condoned or encouraged it. It pains me greatly to see when others respond in a destructive and mean manner. Yes, I would love to see a world where people always treat each other with respect and do not engage in destructive behavior towards others. It would be great if this coordinated response caused many people to see the light and modify their behavior patterns.

The realist in me

Unfortunately, bad behavior always been seen on Internet since the early days. I'm not trying to make an excuse here: it's a simple fact that it's seen everywhere on the Internet across the entire spectrum of users. There are many reasons for this which I won't go into here. It's sufficient to say that people behave very differently on the Internet than in real life. With Internet easier than ever for anyone to access, there are more people present who are not well versed in how to handle negative messages/events.

Even if everyone here today agrees to go ahead with a coordinated response against cyberbullying and other destructive behavior on the Internet, we'll only see a short term effect before it disintegrates back to the old ways. Even if everyone change their behavior tomorrow, it will be inevitable that more people will drawn in and these new people are not attuned to the agreed upon changes. The cycle will repeat itself. In this case, we aren't trying to manage a small group of people, but dealing with a larger population, who don't always follow the same rules, don't know each other personally, don't always get along, respond in many different ways and have their own prejudices and agendas.

The major problems that I have noticed: Not everyone sees cyberbullying in the same light and many times it's a matter of perspective. I've seen too many cases where people who have proclaimed they are against cyberbullying but selectively scold cyberbullies while ignoring/permitting others on their side who engage in the very same behavior.

I think a better approach would be not to aim to eradicate cyberbullying behavior, but to develop effective techniques to deal with these types of behavior on the Internet. Cyberbullying will always exist on the Internet but there are steps to minimize it.

I've tried to model this myself over the years, when I've been attacked numerous times:

1. Always respond in a polite manner, without resorting to degrading comments.
2. Know how to choose the right battles to fight and which ones to avoid.
3. Know when it's best not to respond (most of time, the aim of cyberbullying is to trigger a reaction and while it's very difficult for the person on the receiving end, sometimes the best thing to do is to ignore and not to respond at all.)

Accept the fact that everyone has had different kind of upbringing, were exposed to different things and learned to handle things in different ways. Some of these things they learned or were exposed to may have been positive or were negative. Human nature varies greatly among people. Lastly, it's virtually impossible to change other people's behavior patterns, if they are not open to it.

If there is one thing that I don't like, it's fighting a losing battle. I would prefer to devote my time and energy towards an approach that acknowledges real world factors and will pay off in the end. I may be a bit too pragmatic for my own good but if I see something that will be effective for the long term, I'm all for it.

========================================

B wrote on 10/07/10

　

Be prepared for an heart attack everyone...

I actually agree with M here.

Well said.

=========================================

M wrote on Oct 7, 2010:


B,

Your mentioning "implications" of cyberbullying raises the fundamental
questions I'm having about this call to action and reflections.

I believe this call by S although noble is too superficial for what
is truly needing in this community both in and out of Deaf v/
blogosphere.

What is needing I personally believe as someone who's deeply
entrenched in Deaf Cultural and ASL Studies dealing for so many years
with all kinds of people both Deaf and hearing is recognizing and
respecting the Deaf-centered definitions, social rules, historical
ways, and positively potential ways of dealing with crisis. They exist
and do work but have been badly battered in the "open" via DeafRead,
and yes other "open" Deaf discussion arenas.

Can we begin to discuss cultural as well as personal interpretations
of what consists of an insult? What is considered impolite? What is
considered insignificant to some but a great insult to one or few?
What is considered respect to us or is the same thing considered
hypocrisy to others?

Is pointing out untruths/lies a necessary "insult" or embarrassement
that must be avoided? Does it have to do with confidence that comes
with a healthy cultural connections with people around us or does it
has to do with belittling others or even another culture/language?

Etc etc.

I need to stop now but I know this could become something good.
However just quoting and shouting out "stop cyberbullying" won't work.
Cuz we seem to have different ideas and ways to deal with it an we
haven't even have a collective agreement to cherish and respect our
Deafhood, history, Deaf-centered work and fight against a*dism. Etc etc.
entrenched in Deaf Cultural and ASL Studies dealing for so many years with all kinds of people both Deaf and hearing is recognizing and respecting the Deaf-centered definitions, social rules, historical ways, and positively potential ways of dealing with crisis. They exist and do work but have been badly battered in the "open" via DeafRead, and yes other "open" Deaf discussion arenas.

　

========================================
========================================

J4 wrote to B on 10/07/10:

Hi B. J and I were throwing in our thoughts. I was just having a dialogue. Can u show what I said that was disrespectful to you? This well help me see what I said (unintentionally) to offend you.


======================================
======================================

　

J6 wrote to group on 10/07/10:

I pledge that I will start being diplomatic and start having reasonable dialogue with everyone including K, S, etc. We all need to stop spinning and work towards appropriated solution to the issues.

But will S2 go along with that? Or is his fixation about M, D, B2, DBC, Deafhood is too deep to change for the better?

B, I apologize for my insensitive attitude that I demonstrated to you on your blog two years ago and hope you will forgive me and whenever we meet anywhere in the country, I would like to shake hands to show my secure desire to be friends with you.

J6


=======================================
=======================================

“S” wrote to J6, B, P, K and to group on 10/07/10:

Thank you all for joining this important dialogue. Everyone’s input is respected, valued and appreciated. B, if by saying you don’t want to participate, then I can certainly remove you from this list. I was hoping that although you wish to let it go, you would want to be a part of the discussion. If not, just let me know, thank you.

The points J, M, and K have made are valid. There will always be a “R” or a “S2”. It’s what we choose to do with such comments or cyber-attacks/bullying that is important. From my view, I see a pattern where this issue surfaces almost annually. The educating never stops. Like racism, it rears its ugly head from time to time. Take for example when Obama was elected President, folks thought racism was finally going to end. We know from media publications, racist remarks by the infamous Tea Party about Obama, that this is not true. However, what we do see growing, is a stronger force of people united taking a stand each time it comes up. That is what this is about. Each time it comes up, we grow in numbers to take a stronger stand against cyber attacks and bullying. This doesn’t just mean what happens on the blogs or vlogs, and no matter what culture you belong to, it’s clear bullying attacks when behind scenes where the bullying happens with people sending email threats, calling employers to “squeal” on a person, many of you have experienced this yourselves. This is not acceptable.

P, I appreciate your offer to help. One idea I was toying with, but I don’t have the means to put it together, was to have this be an “infomercial” of the different folks here either defining what it means, or signing stop, or a written quote flashed on the screen – to make it all under 4 mins of course. Basically to make it so that it is “not cool” to attack or bully, so that it becomes a popular thing way to think. That’s what commercials do, shape the way the public should think about an issue or an item. Hope this makes sense. “Next year” we may have a different idea when it comes up again. Like I said, educating folks is an on-going process, it never ends, nor should we ignore it either. I think what I have seen is different folks speaking up on blogs and vlogs. Which is a good thing and needs to continue. But all of us from different backgrounds, together sharing and supporting one message, no.

Thanks to those of you who are considering working on this collectively. May the dialogue continue.....


======================================
======================================

　

“S3” wrote on 10/07/10:

I like the idea of infomercials. keep things simple....people remember simple messages.


======================================================

　

P wrote on 10/07/10

Hi all

Ah my heart is still ticking B - no heart attack. Just an open heart and marveling at this dialogue. Thank you all. I do want to take a minute to apologize to you B if my quoting MLK made you feel I was targeting you. My intent was very far removed from that. This was my intent and desire:

MLK saying... A man dies when he does not stand for that which is right just and good. "Man" was the dominant language of the time. What he meant was a HUMAN - we as a PEOPLE - when we look the other way we cause more harm than good. It is not a question of manhood - or cowardice as MLK framed it

It is a question of doing right and a plea for our souls so there be no
death of the spirit. Too many good folks have been silent. I fully respect what ever choice you choose B. I am speaking to us as a commUNITY and I understand that folks are at different places and stages and have different needs at this time. I’m sorry you felt I was targeting you.

Feel free to disagree with the position without accusing me of something I did not do. I just stated my values and principles - I do accept that many folks hold different values and truths and opinions.

Please know that if I wanna say something directly to you - I will totally honor your spirit and say it directly. I wont play games - there are no veils coming from these quarters.

re: turtle - I was responding more to J3's comment: " It may be easier
just to stay away from cyberworld." But then he quickly followed it with: "But heck no, you are right, we can do better than this."

My purpose of mentioning the turtle - is because it is a mighty temptation for me too.

M wrote:
“Can we begin to discuss cultural as well as personal interpretations of what consists of an insult? What is considered impolite? What is considered insignificant to some but a great insult to one or few? What is considered respect to us or is the same thing considered hypocrisy to others?

Is pointing out untruths/lies a necessary "insult" or embarrassement that must be avoided? Does it have to do with confidence that comes with a healthy cultural connections with people around us or does it has to do with belittling others or even another culture/language?

These are very important questions and maybe the first step in this dialogue is to have folks within this listing share what they see to be the answers to these questions. This may lay the good groundwork for something much better to come forth.


========================================
========================================

J2 wrote on 10/07/10

At the risk of sounding too brash:

I would like to point out two things:

1) I haven't seen anyone who thinks or has said that cyberbullying is OK or is a cool thing to do. Everyone is against it. The problem is their own perception that what they are doing doesn't count as cyberbullying.

2) This similar approach has been tried before with the Pact. It's obvious by now that it has failed and didn't have the desired effect in the long term. Why repeat something similar? It won't work. Find a different approach.

=======================================
=======================================
　

T wrote to group on 10/07/10:

　
S...thanks for initiating this dialogue. I especially appreciate the diversity of people you included in this email:) I would love to see a stop to the targeting of organizations, members of organizations, and individual naming and name calling. I think we have so much to gain by being respectful of each other. That includes other people's opinions even if they are different from our own. I am sorry that B felt put down for his opinion. I don't think that was the intention of anyone but more that this is a forum to either want to be involved in this project or not. So B...please do stay involved in this discussion.. and I do want to thank you for bringing out the truth on Deafread to the facts of the letter writing to employers. That was very brave of you and honorable.

I would love to see guidelines enforced and some oversight to stop witch hunts and harassment which are all forms of bullying but taken to the extreme of riding the line of slander and libel. Vendettas to destroy people and organizations should be recognized and eliminated on aggregators. There is a difference between freedom of speech and terrorism. Simply not accepting those kinds of vlogs and blogs eliminate the chances an aggregator becoming infested by people that simply have agendas to harm others because they feel they have been slighted or owed apologies.

As a hearing parent, I am sadden at some of the blogs I read that literally make the D/d people and organizations look horrible, that spread untruths, and basically turn hearing parents who need information desperately away from D/d people, Deaf communities, and the Deaf blogosphere. Because of all the wonderful D/d people who have influenced our family's lives, I am grateful and hopeful through today's technology that other hearing families can make connections they need to be supported. Many times this happens through blogs and vlogs. And we all know that when our D/d children feel supported and accepted, the possibilities are endless for them.

I think all of you have made some very good suggestions and through this dialogue, I hope that we can all come to some kind of consensus on how is the best way to start awareness building of cyberbullying and how to improve the aggregator systems so that people feel safe again participating in today's cyberworld.

I am happy to participate in this...

T

=====================================
　

J wrote on 10/07/10

J2:
I'm glad u pointed that out.
What would be an effective approach to take?
I think we should consider various strategies before settling on one.


======================================

J3 wrote on 7 Oct 2010


At the risk of sounding too brash:

I would like to point out two things:

1) I haven't seen anyone who thinks or has said that cyberbullying is OK or is a cool thing to do. Everyone is against it. The problem is their own perception that what they are doing doesn't count as cyberbullying.

2) This similar approach has been tried before with the Pact. It's obvious by now that it has failed and didn't have the desired effect in the long term. Why repeat something similar? It won't work. Find a different approach.

===================================


“S” wrote on Oct 7, 2010:

Thank you all for joining this important dialogue. Everyone’s input is respected, valued and appreciated. B, if by saying you don’t want to participate, then I can certainly remove you from this list. I was hoping that although you wish to let it go, you would want to be a part of the discussion. If not, just let me know, thank you.

The points J3, M, and K have made are valid. There will always be a “R” or a “S3”. It’s what we choose to do with such comments or cyber-attacks/bullying that is important. From my view, I see a pattern where this issue surfaces almost annually. The educating never stops. Like racism, it rears its ugly head from time to time. Take for example when Obama was elected President, folks thought racism was finally going to end. We know from media publications, racist remarks by the infamous Tea Party about Obama, that this is not true. However, what we do see growing, is a stronger force of people united taking a stand each time it comes up. That is what this is about. Each time it comes up, we grow in numbers to take a stronger stand against cyber attacks and bullying. This doesn’t just mean what happens on the blogs or vlogs, and no matter what culture you belong to, it’s clear bullying attacks when behind scenes where the bullying happens with people sending email threats, calling employers to “squeal” on a person, many of you have experienced this yourselves. This is not acceptable.

P, I appreciate your offer to help. One idea I was toying with, but I don’t have the means to put it together, was to have this be an “infomercial” of the different folks here either defining what it means, or signing stop, or a written quote flashed on the screen – to make it all under 4 mins of course. Basically to make it so that it is “not cool” to attack or bully, so that it becomes a popular thing way to think. That’s what commercials do, shape the way the public should think about an issue or an item. Hope this makes sense. “Next year” we may have a different idea when it comes up again. Like I said, educating folks is an on-going process, it never ends, nor should we ignore it either. I think what I have seen is different folks speaking up on blogs and vlogs. Which is a good thing and needs to continue. But all of us from different backgrounds, together sharing and supporting one message, no.

Thanks to those of you who are considering working on this collectively. May the dialogue continue.....


===============================

J5 wrote on 07 Oct 2010

I pledge that I will start being diplomatic and start having reasonable dialogue with everyone including X, Y, etc.

We all need to stop spinning and work towards appropriated solution to the issues.

But will S3 go along with that? Or is his fixation about M, XX, Y, DBC, Deafhood is too deep to change for the better?

B, I apologize for my insensitive attitude that I demonstrated to you on your blog two years ago and hope you will forgive me and whenever we meet anywhere in the country, I would like to shake hands to show my secure desire to be friends with you.
together all on the same "page".


========================================

Excuses Adult Cyberbullies Make

Adult cyberbullies with their continuing and repetitive nature of bullying online will provide an array of excuses to try and dissuade people that they cannot be a cyberbully. Cyberbullying takes on many forms. Some are insidious in nature racked with compulsions while others behave like children such as a posting a picture of the victim the cyberbully dislike on the web in such a demeaning fashion.

A dissertation written by Warren J. Blumenfeld, Ed. D., on cyberbullying describes it succinctly in his abstract:

Cyberbullying, like face-to-face (f2f) bullying, involves deliberate and repeated aggressive and hostile behaviors by an individual or group of individuals intended to humiliate, harm, and/or control another individual or group of individuals of lesser power or social status. Cyberbullying, however, involves the use of information and communication technologies such as Internet web sites, e-mail, chat rooms, mobile phone and pager text message, and instant messaging. The author discusses the similarities and diference between f2f and cyberbullying, and the psychological dimensions unique to human-computer interactions which tend to increase abusive behaviors, including cyberbullying. In addition, the author proposes the application of social norms theory in research initiatives to address issues of cyberbullying.

Adults and children use the same mechanism and tools when it comes to cyberbullying. They both use the internet web sites, email, chat rooms, Twitter, Facebook, mobile phone and text messaging and instant messaging. There are no descernible differences between adults and children when the intention is to send hurtful, cruel, and intimidating messages to their targeted victims. Those would be "hate mail" types. Both adults and children use their blogs or vlogs to post derogatory comments aimed at their intended victims on a regular basis because "they deserve it" or that "I'm showing people the truth!" They do that with malicious intent and purpose. They also use their websites to post pictures of their intended victims telling readers how ugly they are by comparing them to pictures of ugly creatures, for example. Or conjure up stories, produce cartoons or caricatures, display demeaning pictures, or tell jokes ridiculing or mocking others in such repeated fashion. It's an amalgam of all those things that makes a cyberbully a cyberbully. As we all know technology allows cyberbullies a "shelter" against tangible feedback about consequences of one's actions, which can result in minimized empathy or remorse for the intended target of bullying according to Blumenfeld.

"People who engage in cyberbullying can inflict pain without having to see the effects, which can result in a "deeper level of meaness. People who cyberbully can also communicate their hurtful messages to a wider audience with incredible speed."

And that,

"cyberspace can also inhibit a user's sense of responsibility for actions online."

That alone help increase the level of "meanness" of cyberbullying in an almost discombobulated form of cyberspace interaction.

Blumenfeld provided an example of how a cyberbully would justify his or her actions on why abusive messages were sent online,

"I was only telling the truth. She is ugly, and I felt she had to know it!"

Blumenfeld succinctly put it this way,

"It's about the rationalization-denial of responsibility centers around offering the targets of their abuse needed and useful information."

In short, they "deserved it" and needed to "know it" would be their main excuse or justification for behaving in such a boorish and hateful manner. But in cyberspace it's a world where reality gets distorted.

Blumenfeld explains,

"In a virtual sense, then, cyberspace communication can alter perceptions by becoming a make-believe world, a dream-like experience, even a game in which the rules of real life bullying no longer apply. Cyberbullying can occur any time and any place. Home, there, is no longer a refuge from bullying and harassment."

The Blumenfeld dissertation was a piece on children and teens susceptible to cyberbullying but many instances of cyberbullying children describe exactly the adult cyberbullying situation.

Adult cyberbullying is real. It exists. It has been and continues to be documented. Cyberbullying has happened to other adults just as it happened to other children. Do not be a party to or associate with a known cyberbully because doing so encourages cyberbullying attitudes. Once a cyberbully always a cyberbully. Do not let their excuses or justifications fool or confuse you.

Adult Cyberbullying

Believe or not the term cyberbullying is just not for kiddies but even among adults who behave exactly what kids would do online, plus some more. You can have an adult bully or a child bully. Being bully knows no age-limit. And if an adult can be a bully, so can one be an adult cyberbully as well.

Cyberbullying does not just apply to children. There are adult groups dedicated to harassing and defaming others as well, along with websites created online specifically to make fun of and demean individuals. These people can be found in communities linked to blogs and chat rooms and they use the disguise of “anonymity” to harass their prey. 

Definition: "Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phone and pager text messages, instant messaging (IM), defamatory personal Web sites, and defamatory online personal polling Web sites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others." – Bill Belsey, Cyberbullying Expert  

Common Variations:  Cyber Bullying; Cyberbullying; Cyber-Bullying; Cyberstalking; and Cybermobbing.
 

There is a new non-profit organization against adult cyberbullyg called Civil Nation whose aim is to take

"....a stand against online hostility and adult cyberbullying. Its focus is on advancing the full capability of individuals to communicate and engage in cyberspace in a responsible and accountable way. A strong supporter of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, CiviliNation believes that free speech is enhanced through civil dialog and a rational exchange of information and ideas. By fostering an online culture in which individuals can fully engage and contribute without fear or threat of being the target of unwarranted abuse, harassment, or lies, the core ideals of democracy are upheld."

In the deaf culture world they, too, also have their share of adult cyberbullies who consistently and constantly go on the prowl to find deaf individuals (not public figures but private) and concoct justifications or excuses to make sustained and continued attacks on a regular or semi-regular basis in the effort to defame, make fun of, make hostile remarks, harass, demean, use online threats of exposing identities, call names and/or participate in online activities with one or more people in the effort to get individuals fired or in trouble at work over a matter of disagreements of opinions.  An example of that actually happened during the AB2072 protest (read the comments) . Sometimes you have certain people who like to lay low and get other cyberbullies to do their bidding by directing them or make suggestion about certain individuals because of their dislike or strong disagreement with their opinions or stances.

Cyberbullies come in all forms and shape, and age, too. "Cyberbullying" is not a word reserved only for kids but for adults, too, who behave just like what kids would do. And that is being a cyberbully.

For cochlear implant musicians only - a call for panelists

For an upcoming web conference on listening to and making music with cochlear implants in September 2013, the Association of Adult Musicians with Hearing Loss are hosting a panel of adult musicians who wear cochlear implants. The purpose of this is to share with our audiences the very personal and individual experiences of what it is like to make music with a cochlear implant. Below are the criteria we will consider in panelist selection.

1. The panelist must have at least one year of experience with their cochlear implant(s).

2. The panelist must be musicians or music students who are active in music study, as evidenced by practicing on their instrument several times a week and/or taking private lessons regularly.

3. The panelist must be available on Saturday, September 7, from 1-3 pm Eastern time to serve on the panel.

A small honorarium will be given to panelists at the conclusion of the conference.

If you are interested in serving on this panel, please send your name, email address and a brief statement to AAMHL expressing your interest. The brief statement should state why you feel you would be a good candidate for the panel. All statements and contact inforrmation should be sent to info@aamhl.org by March 30, 2013.