There is no pleasing a certain crowd in the blogosphere as one can see the near over-reaction comments seen
here regarding my post "
A Fancy, Schmancy Blogpost" that was done nearly two months ago. Put it simply, it was about my refusal to, ah, uh, "simplify" my writings (ie my vocabulary) to those few who might have problems understanding them. For one, this is how I write and express myself. It has been my writing style ever since I was in high school. And, secondly, I trust readers are already smart enough and have the sensibility to look words up. Would it be better to assume that they are incapable of doing that? If I said that I'd have people up in arms charging me with "audism" or some other obscure knee-jerk responses. After all this is the internet and vocabularies are easily looked up. And I find this kind of discussion and introspection somewhat fascinating seeing how few people have reacted to my earlier "Fancy, Schmancy Blogpost."
Just humor me, ok?
Virginia L. Beach wrote up a short DeafDC blog article called
'Building a Blogger's Ethical Framework' where she discussed deaf/hh bloggers' ethics, basically so. Now, the word "ethics" is defined as a motivation based on ideas perceived as right and wrong. This is synonymous with the word "moral" which is about discerning between right and wrong actions. But talking about "ethics" in terms of bloggers' responsibilities tread close to the idea that they ought to be afraid of offending someone else's sensibilities and by doing so it is said to be wrong, heartless, cruel and not understanding of their positions.
I don't buy that completely.
For example, there is
one comment Virginia made I pretty much disagree with:
I believe that if you are going to put your thoughts, opinions, and feelings on the Internet for the world to see, you are responsible for the outcome of such actions.
Not exactly sure what "such actions" would be. Could be anything. Those "outcomes" will result whatever people make of it. If they're the sensitive lot or tend to misunderstand what's written, they may scream like a banshee and demand that blogpost get stricken down somehow or worse get that blogsite banned completely from the internet. Just because people don't agree with somebody else's blogpost on deaf-related issues or viewpoints. Or even when certain truths are exposed do they want to become that little dictator. And yet I thought those who would react in such a way make up a very tiny minority among those in the Deaf community. Now, looking back I may be wrong about this.
Just humor me on this. I'm trying to be introspective here.
In my still ongoing poll survey, "
If You Had the Power to Remove Blogsites Would You Do It?", approximately 30% of those who participated said that if they had the power to censor a blogpost or blogsite they would or might take action to censor a blog or remove blogsite from the internet for carrying such an opinion or viewpoint that they disagree with over deaf-related issues. Before doing this survey I thought I'd get like way less than a 10% response result by those who would indeed abuse that kind of power. Maybe even 5% of the people would be like that. But seeing the 30% result (so far as of this writing) is enough to suck air out of anybody's lungs when one realizes there are Deaf/deaf/hh people out there willing to quash freedom of expression solely over an opinion or viewpoint over deaf-related issues. It simply boggles the mind. Are they thinking that way? Of course, assuming those who responded to my survey poll are actually Deaf, deaf or hard of hearing which is more likely than not in this case. And assuming they understood my question and responded honestly. Then those 30% who would undoubtedly or most likely without a second thought take away somebody else's freedom of expression if they were given that power? Is this a part of the Deaf culture of what? Do people not understand what the
1st Amendment is all about when it comes to freedom of expression?
Of course, emotions vary from person to person. Not everybody will react negatively. They may react by shrugging it off and not worry too much about it. They may even agree on some points. Some may in fact will simply agree to disagree and leave it at that. Or at the very least contribute to a debate without losing one's head over it and get into an insult slugfest. Or heaven forbid, actually whine.
Not cool.
In the blogosphere world it can be a double-edged sword when it comes to writing your own blogpost. Of course, depending on the topic and opinions expressed people will respond differently. However, I don't entirely agree that other people reactions to, for example, my blogposts are
my responsibilities. I'd say that's going a bit too far. If they lose their cool, then it's completely all my fault and I should be held accountable and responsible for their own reactions and actions toward me?
Uh, sure. That idea borders on ludicrousness in my mind (ie. I simply disagree).
Just humor me on this since I'm almost done.
I believe the ultimate responsibility sits squarely and mostly on the readers' shoulders on how they respond to a blogpost rather than to blame the author/blogger for their own reactions. Believing otherwise defies the human imagination and that people are incapable of accepting their own responsibilities and controls over their own emotions and responses. Of course there is a caveat to what I'm saying here and and that there are exceptions to the rule when bloggers do have to carry certain responsibilities when it comes to blogging like avoiding libel or defamation, for example. Aside from that this "ethics" idea gets dangerously close to the idea that bloggers ought to be afraid of one's own shadow for the fear of offending someone else's sensibilities and that readers must be handled with kids gloves at all times.
Now, how many readers would rather be
handled with kids gloves for fear of offending their sensibilities?
This is America.
And not China.
