Hi Peter and others on this issue.
I don't have a problem with that banner any more than I had an issue with
the last thing that Graeme had an issue with when he was complaining about
the use of the term, "Blind Freddy".
If we're going to be offended about these things, then we want taking out
and shooting!
That sounds extreme I know, but aren't there other things to get upset about
such as employment, library services and accessibility issues?
Thanks.
Adrian.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Greco
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:58 AM
To: insightsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; insightsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [insightsa] comments about Leisure Link interview
Hi Folks
Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and Angela and Stefan
whilst I may not agree with it, I will defend your right to have and express
it!! My understanding of the being offended or taking offence or being
offensive is that if I say something and the person takes offence to it,
then it's up to me to not say it again, or be mindful of that! So, if I
e.g., don't have an issue with say the comments on the Carlton banner and
another person who is blind does, then that comment on the banner is not
okay!
And of course it's as some may think just the beginning of the end, if this
is okay, then where does one draw the line!!
Just for the record, and if you heard the interview this was mentioned, the
banner read something like
"Richmond's 5 year plan is a disaster, only the vision impaired like Dusty's
Martin's barber".
Now, some said after that Dusty Martin was offended because apart from the
vision impaired a go was being had at his hair cut!!
Interesting discussions!!
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew & Angela Schiller <schiller7754@xxxxxxxxx>
To: insightsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, March 27, 2017 8:17 pm
Subject: [insightsa] Re: LeisureLink Interview and taking offense
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.
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 p..
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.
