Greetings readers. It's been a long while since I've blogged on a subject. Two reasons. 1) The editors at DeafRead.com have been rejecting my blogs. Instead of publishing it on their main page they'd hide it in the extra page. I suspect that their editors do not like me and the views I bring to the table. It's becoming a waste of time for me to try and understand what they want to hear and what they don't. 2) My interest in blogging has faded considerably because I think that most people understand where I stand on various matters. No need to repeat myself senselessly.
However I ran into a friend's facebook post recently and saw this video by a man named Dean. I never saw this man before. Never heard of him either. I liked some of his basic points but then I noticed something typical about him. I thought I'd try and have some kind of discussion with him so I did. And I was right about him. Such character is so predictable! They are known as big "D" extremist who only knew how to do one thing.... and that is to dismiss others who saw things differently. They would go even further to impose their belief & philosophy upon others who saw things differently. In their ever so isolated world it's a one way street. I'm going to offer an actual example here.
Be sure to watch this video first if you have not already. And then read what was discussed in a friend's Facebook wall. This video is captioned for non-signers.
---- Dean quoted ----
Dean wrote to Karen (owner of the facebook post) - you have every rights to vent. I am right behind you. I was there... but today we are under a tough situation. And, AM is just moving us away from the goal. I feel that she was aiming to do that. And, she succeed. It makes ZERO sense to me why she would attack little things when things are close to schedule.
For example, AFA protect happened. AM attacked Dave, ESAD Page and me. I lost focus on that. At the same time, the new board and recent developemnt of Regional Representatives were created. When A deaf agency hired a hearing person. She attacked those not infavor of the hearing person. She attacked that. The goal and focus was lost and all the sour things happened.
When 4201 Protect started, she attacked the President. All focus was lost in our community. Leaders ignored her and let her just attack. This happens over and over and over... we almost lost 4201 but I'm glad the leaders include myself put that aside.
That is my owly concerns... she always shows up and divides our people and we lose focus. But, I do know the feeling that she was wrong. There is little to do about opinon vs opinion without valid facts. It seems to me she just wants us to bark up the wrong trees and lose our focus. That is what happens ALL the times when she attacks.
----- end quote ----
I saw Dean's message as an effort to encourage us to work together. And then I noticed how he'd see those who don't work together as some kind of traitor. Huh? I asked myself if he also meant those who saw things differently?
I left a comment for Karen.
----- I quoted ----
Hi Karen. This is what I posted under Dean's vlog; Hi Dean. It's nice meeting you. I totally agree with your statement here. Very important to work together, especially when we are being confronted by adversaries such as bullying. However you'll understand that not every deaf people would agree on everything. Like me, I don't necessarily agree with many things that are being promoted by radical & extremists big D deaf people. I honestly do have different views on many things but I've been called many nasty things by big D deaf people. In short, they are saying it is not okay to think differently. They want to turn our community into some kind of mass-conformists who will cease from becoming independent thinkers. To think for ourselves is turning into some kind of sin. This type of oppression is not helping your cause. I, for one love deaf schools but I've refrained from supporting this cause because I do not want to be seen around the extremists. And I know many others who felt the same thing. Instead of pointing fingers at specific individuals and blaming them for the distractions, this group of radical extremists ought to take a hard and long look at their own behaviors. They're actually driving prominent & potential leaders away. Take me as an example. I have extensive experience in politics but I'm determined not to work with the the extremists. Thanks for hearing me out.
---- end quote -----
Much to my delight, Dean came in and made a decision to talk to me.
---- Dean quoted ----
Barry, I saw the posting today. It's ok to agree to disagree. There are many levels of social justice in a system advocacy. I will like to share some but I borrowed it from technology world. lol.
1. Innovators
2. Neutral
3. Laggers
An innovator would want to focus on changing the world. the Laggers will rather stay behind in the old ways. Innovation can be good or bad. Those who are in middle are neutral.
There is nothing wrong with where you want to be as long as you are neutral. This is America. We live in a democrat society where the people run the system. One person can not run the whole system so that is why we have many people working together.
In this 3 group of voter in each election. Please keep in mind, not all people vote. Currently 48% of the people are voters.
1. New Idea
2. Neutral
3. Old Idea
Sometimes, new ideas do not help the people, and people fight to keep the old idea. Those two group try go grow up. They are not always radical & extremists. Most of the times, we need to listen to both sides and do what we think is best for our people and country. This is not a sin. The sin is when people lie to get what they want. We all need to figure the best for ourselves.
If we want to think that disagreeing is radical & extremists, then we need to think about these people Martin Luther King, Jr., George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B Anthony, Frederick Douglas, and many more people... do you really think they had a bad cause? At those times, when they were fighting for changes people actually were either against, supporting or neutral. This happens in our everyday life.
These people made the changes that we live today. But, there are also many changes that affect our lives in bad way too by other people in history. Thomas Jefferson supported slavery but he said that in 7 years they need to be freed. Even Adolf Hitler made changes that was in a bad way. Even IBM lost their whole name by letting Microsoft create a software for their computer and so on.
There are good and bad radical & extremists. We need all people working together. Those who are neutral are example of our former President James Monroe who was known as the great compromiser. He compromised what the Federalist (Alexander Hamilton and George Washinton) and the Democrats (Thomas Jefferson) were fighting over.
So, please don't become negative on either sides but listen and figure out what is good and needed. The future depends on all these things. Right now, deaf schools have 20% of the population. Mainstream is 80% of the population. And, I am seeing more and more deaf children with CI, hearing aids and etc... that can not speak and are left in a system without integration to communications. They go to school and home without any communication and they have no friends or learning opporunities in a fully integrated environment of communication.
I hope you will think of these children who need deaf schools but are stuck in an environment that segregated them from access to communication in mainstream schools. Seriously... i am seeing more and more of this.
---- end quote ----
Whew... that was quite a lengthy statement coming from him. I took it as an invitation to have a frank and open discussion with him so I gladly wrote back and accepted the invitation. I addressed the points he made in his comment.
---- I quoted ----
Dean, thanks for the lengthy response. Based on what little you just wrote, I'd like to say that I do agree with you on some fronts and I also disagree on some fronts. I appreciate your outline, that of innovators, neutral, laggers as well as new idea, neutral and old idea. However it’s not that simple as you made it sound.
Just because one is an innovator it does not mean they are right. It does not mean they have a proven theory. It does not mean we have to follow them or support them. And because one does not support or follow an innovator it does not mean they are neutral group of people. It does not mean they are laggers either. You see…. You just labeled them as ‘neutral’ and ‘laggers’ because they are not conformists… because they do not agree with you. I think you know better than to do something like this but yet for some reason you tried to dismiss those who actually have different view on things. Labeling them as neutral or laggers (and you might even consider them traitors) is not fair.
And again, an innovator is just that… nothing more. There is such thing as unsuccessful innovator. There are numerous factors and reasons why they do fail. I won’t go there since it’s going to generate an entirely new chapter. However, lack of insights from multiple points is one main reason.
An innovator does not always want to change the world. An innovator may try and create ways to maintain the old ways. I mean, look at yourself and the radical / extremists. What are they fighting for? They’re fighting to keep the deaf schools (old schools, mind you) and their language (our language isn’t new, mind you). So, you see, an innovator does not always want to change the world. Oftentimes they want to keep the old ways. You spoke of CI, and all the new technological changes… that’s changing the world and you’re fighting against it BECAUSE you are afraid of changes.
Don’t know if you know me as a vlogger but most people do. Everybody knows me as a controversial vlogger if not the most controversial one that is out there. And yet you gave an indication that I was on the neutral side. That statement was laughable. I know myself and I’m far from the neutral camp. Many will tell you that I’m not neutral on anything and I think I agree with them. And I most definitely am not a lagger. So what does that make me? An non-conformist. That’s what I am but yet you didn’t bother to mention this in your lengthy response. How come? You know we exist and yet you didn’t want to mention us.
Moving onto 3 group of voters in each election. You mentioned;
1. New Idea
2. Neutral
3. Old Idea
Surely you ought to know that new ideas oftentimes include old ideas but because old ideas might be unpopular they would come up with a new term and new image of something new which’s actually an old idea. This is done all the time. Most people don’t realize it but many things are being repeated. The history is repeating itself. So, don’t be fooled by new ideas. Secondly, neutral does not mean it lacks new idea or old idea. Oftentimes neutral is an action of promoting new idea or old idea. People don’t realize this but it happens all the time. People choose their neutral position as a way of re-positioning policies. Didn’t you know that? Old ideas are oftentimes new ideas. Sometimes policy makers know how unpopular new ideas are so they would try and paint the policy as the old policy when it actually changes most everything. Our government does this all the time but yet most people don’t realize this.
In essence, how we might vote depends largely on how we interpret old ideas and new ideas. Your view of new idea might be old to me. Your view of old idea might be new to me. Who are you to say that we all share the same view on old and new ideas? Who are you to decide what’s best for our people and our country? Who am I to decide what’s best for our people and our country? I mean, we simply can not possibly make ourselves larger than we really are. We can speak for ourselves but we can’t possibly speak for others. And that is what you and some of the extremists have been trying to do…. Imposing is what you all seem to do best. Imposing isn’t cool.
I find it quite comical when some of you tried to compare your cause with people like Martin Luther King, Jr., George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B Anthony, Frederick Douglas, and such. These people didn’t fight against medical innovations. These people didn’t fight against new ideas. They actually fought for new ideas and new changes. It’s the opposite of what you guys are doing. You guys are fighting to maintain the old world. The old world belonged to the Kings and Queens of Europe. The old world belonged to white supremacists who wanted to enslave black people. The old world belonged to men who wanted to keep women under theiur control. The list goes on and on. You can’t just compare your cause to theirs.
And lastly, I thought it was quite interesting when you asked me not to become negative on either side but listen and figure out what’s good and needed. Hmmm… does it not occur to you that what might be good and needed to you might not be good and needed to me and others? You spoke of the future, which depends on all these things. FYI, your view on future is not the same as mine. You see a worrisome future and I see a bright future. I am not concerned about having only 20% of the deaf children population at the deaf schools. I think it’s a reflection of healthy dosage of innovations. I think that 80% population of deaf children found in mainstreaming schools is a reflection of healthy dosage of innovations. I am not concerned when I see more and more deaf children with CI. Not concerned about them using hearing aids either. I think it’s great. It actually mean we still have our freedom to choose our options. You made a claim on how some of them would go to school and home without any communication… lacking friends or lacking learning opportunities. I agree that it’s happening but the factors are numerous. It’s not because of lack of ASL or lack of deaf school services. Mental health is the largest contributor to the problem here. Family value is one other main cause. Community ineffectiveness is one. I mean, the list goes on and on. Blaming the problem squarely on lack of ASL and deaf schools is not going to fly. The policy makers are not stupid. They have a complete team of researchers who compound all possible data together and make policy decisions. I mean, broaden up your horizon and learn accordingly.
And lastly, some of you seem to have selective hearings... (only a saying) choosing to ignore bullying when it was targeted towards deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people you didn't care for. And when an inside hit was made then I hear this outcry. I mean, how do you think it made you and others look? Take Aidan Mack as an example. She bullied many deaf, HH and hearing people but yet you never spoke out. And then, all of suddenly you spoke out as soon as she attacked your camp. What made you think we’re going to sympathize with you? I hope you understand what I’m seeing here.
---- end quote ----
And boy... he sounded as if he was pissed off, forgetting who initiated (started) the discussion between the two of us.
---- Dean quoted ----
I'm not going to spend hours debating your thoughts. You are entitled to your own opinion. But, I will like to discuss your accusation.
My respond was, "I am seeing more and more deaf children with CI, hearing aids and etc... that can not speak and are left in a system without integration to communications."
And your respond to my respond:
"changing the world and you’re fighting against it BECAUSE you are afraid of changes."
No where I said anything that where I stand in the issue. I gave a very surface answer. You gave an answer that you are confident that I am afraid of change. Bottom line, my answer does not even match your assumption. Therefore you gave a lie as in sin. That was not a very nice assumption.
To assume means to make an ass out of you and me. I do not want to do that to you. However, I am not insulting. I just want you to see how a bully works. My advise for you is that before you go against me about changes. Be sure you know where I actually stand. Focusing on ASL, is about changes too. No one wants to use ASL anymore. More and more hearing people want to use ASL today than before. That is a change. Focusing on speaking is about changes. Focusing on hearing is about changes. But, I can tell you one thing. The change that we all should be fighting is not about that. It's about respect. No where CI, Oralism, Hearing and etc is helping deaf respect eachother. The only place the respect will land is at ASL. Think about how many deaf people today use ASL and were raised to be oral. The percent always decreases as they go back to signing. But, their skills are very weak. They can not communicate effectively in ANY WAY! I am always embarrassed how my oral friends speak to hearing people. Including myself, I struggle on signing clearly because I was raised without ASL and thinking that ASL was a bad thing. Some people still carry that. I gave in a long time ago and realized that ASL is a language we should fight for a change for all of us then all other things will come in well.
People are going to become deaf whenever they get CI or not. They will still depend on ASL whenever they get CI or not. They still will lose their hearing whenever they get CI or not. These changes still lead many people to need ASL. And, taking away ASL from these children is not helping them integrate in the community.
Those who want to change are taking away ASL. And, seriously... tell me any people with CI who are hearing well with CI. I am friends with many CI users... who do not use ASL. They still misunderstand more than a deaf person with an interpreter. We should not ignore those facts that an interpreter is still needed.
Bottom line, my point still stands... we need ASL as foundation of our deaf education.
---- end quote ----
Apparently he had more to say so he made other comment following the earlier comment.
---- Dean quoted ----
But, I want to focus on the senate of Indiana right now... there is about 2 hours to go! This debate should not take place right now. I am not even in Indiana to help them... the hope and support needs to go to those leaders not between you and me.
I hope you can see what I mean here Bruce. Nice talking with you and hopefully we can see eye to eye somewhere. And, thank you for being a little more respectful than the other bullies out there.
---- end quote ----
I had to chuckle because he sounded so typical. I responded;
---- I quoted ----
LOL @ Dean. I don't see a Bruce in this thread. The name is Barry. Talking about being respectful, eh? Regardless, that was a nice effort on your part, to try and turn the table on me. FYI, it is quite typical coming from extremist big "D" people. You assumed a lot of things in your initial comment towards me and I didn't complain. I gladly discussed the points you made. And yet you didn't want to discuss the points I made? Instead, you resorted to what I'd call typical response by extremist big 'D" deaf people. Rather than discussing my points you resorted to mere excuses, labeling my points as assumptions... as if you didn't assume anything in your comment. This is comical (chuckling here on my end) but then it does not surprise me. This happens all the time. People like you run away from the table whenever I bring valid points to the table. Apparently you're no different.
---- end quote ----
I knew it right off the bat when I saw his video. I liked some of his message but yet I knew he was this typical radical extremist big "D" character who only knows how to dismiss those who see things differently. And then they LOVE to impose their own ideologies upon others who see things differently. They hate non-conformist people like myself. They hate people who think independently and differently. They are so predictable. What further proof do you need?
