Well said Stefan too many blindies are over sensitive to the B word. I haven't
heard the interview in question that can fully support what you're stating. If
you want to integrate yourself into the big bad world out there and be part of
conversations with statements like are you blind or something turn up you can't
be too sensitiv. To me it's just a form of expression used in our language
in a similar way that slang is used.
Cheers Angela Schiller
from my iPhone
On 27 Mar 2017, at 12:54 pm, Stefan Slucki <gracedman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear friends, I do hope Graham is reading as well since he gave Peter the
interview which has led to this post.
I’ve not seen a discussion on insightsa for a while. Perhaps this will be it?
I’m not writing simply for the sake of it, but Graham’s interview mirrors the
“18C” discussions I’ve been hearing elsewhere in a helpful and important way.
For those who’ve not heard Graham’s interview on LeisureLink I’m not going to
repeat it, please go take a listen.
Is it reasonable to be offended by the phrase on the banner, I ask you?
I should say I am NOT responding as an affronted ‘Blues’ supporter (smile),
Graham didn’t even mention those silly flames displayed after each goal we
kicked the other night—a silly stunt if ever there was one! He did mention
wording featured on the club banner.
But seriously, what he is arguing is for culture-vandalism in my opinion—the
curbing of free speech and the setting back of the welcoming of blind people
into sane, normal society. If his reasoning, as outlined in the interview is
followed, no longer will it be permissible to use terms like “robbing him
blind”; “they went on a blind date”; “the experiments were carried out
double-blind” etc etc. Graham, I hope I am not misrepresenting your position,
but that’s what I understood you to be saying: some people might be offended
so such language ought to be avoided.
And that involving the deaf as well like “turning a deaf ear” to reason.
Being “deaf to entreaties”.
I don’t know about other subscribers to this list, but I have found numbers
of people oh so timid about interacting with me because they don’t know what
to say, what to talk about and not talk about and this prescriptive nonsense
will only add to the isolation of the vision-impaired and the blind and not
help in the slightest in having us understood, accepted, let alone
integrated—heaven forbid.
Rather than coddling the supra-sensitive, what needs to happen is to help
them adjust to their new reality or simply ignore their continued peculiarity
which will continue no matter what concession is made to their ‘special
pleadings’.
The particular incident which gave rise to Graham’s interview with Peter on a
footy-club banner is, of course, not meant to be mistaken for intelligent
social commentary!
I was so disappointed to hear Graham do, what so many do and that is to mix
in various categories of grievance. He brought in so-called sexism, racism
and homosexuality—completely different issues each one!
Why can’t I say I am “feeling gay” today without meaning anything sexual? You
see, there’s an instance of the cultural vandalism at work already!
I definitely agree with Graham that words are important, that language can be
hurtful and we ought to be careful how we use it—and he was saying that,
indeed. I am just disagreeing that we should be ‘Human Rights Commissioning’
it over language in the way he was implying.
Graham did, and probably still does, great work advocating for things such as
the provision of audio-announcements on trains: tangible things which can’t
offend but assist us as blind and vision-impaired people.
I stand white-cane to guide-dog with him on those things and cricket-fan
alongside cricket-fan when it comes to that.
So blind Freddie can see we agree on many things. (smile)
Kind regards;
Stefan Slucki.
Why not have your say? Doesn’t have to be personality-based, stick to the
issues, please! What do you think? When the word “blind” is used, are you
hurt and why? Because the last time I checked, it isn’t an obscenity so
you’ll need to justify removing a freedom which I guess we should be prepared
to consider doing if there’s sufficient cause to do it.
