[Blindtlk] non 24

[Cindy Ray]

Well, though I am sick of this topic, and though I have deleted many of the
messages, I just have to say that I think Gary has given us some important
points to ponder. Ads like this make sales; some blind people may hear or
see it and be so moved by it that they will get tested and, finding that
they need the product take it. So far as anyone knows, this is a regular ad
practice. I believe to some extent the NFB has employed it. I can remember
some ads I saw for our previous mailings that would make you cringe just a
little. People will believe what they will, and they don't need these ads to
help them with it. They will assimilate what they need to of it and discard
the rest. I don't like the ads, but I haven't found any difference in how I
have been treated except for the doc asking me if this could be my problem.
Bob on the other hand requested it, and the doctor he works with looked into
it for him. They determined that it was not a drug that would be useful for
him. Do you think someone would not hire you on the strength that you don't
know the difference between night and day, thus needing a drug to help with
it. There are plenty of other reasons they can come up with. If you show up
during the day at your interview, they pretty much figure you must have some
sense of time. I don't know but what I think we are making too big a deal of
it. Meanwhile, the Washington Seminar is coming next week. I know all aren't
into the NFB Initiatives, but they could be worth discussing. I would need
to start a new message for it though since the Non-24 is the subject of this
one.
Cindy


-----Original Message-----
From: blindtlk [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Gary Wunder
via blindtlk
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12:43 PM
To: 'Blind Talk Mailing List' <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Gary Wunder <gwunder at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] non 24

Well, it sounds like most of us have an opinion about this subject. I don't
have anything new to say about the motives of Vanda, the studies they used,
or whether we should be accepting sponsorships for the convention. I do
think we have to ask ourselves a very hard question: what message are we
happy with about blindness if it doesn't come from us? I'm in the business
of putting out our message as the editor of the Braille Monitor, so I love
that message very much, but should we turn thumbs down on a guide dog school
that decides to do radio advertising in order to give the blind greater
mobility and that ad features a blind woman talking about the isolation she
experienced and how she now moves about in her community? If a radio ad
decides to promote a reading machine for the blind and a blind person talks
about how it has changed her life because once she had stacks of mail that
she didn't know how to get through and this new machine has given her
tremendous independence, would we object on the grounds that she is implying
that blind people without the machine can't handle paperwork? 

Like most statements that can be made, there is some truth in almost
everything. Does the action of one blind person affect all blind people? Of
course not. If it did, Mike Freeman's successful performance as a computer
programmer would have meant that all discrimination against computer
programmers who are blind would have ceased almost four decades ago. Does
the fact that one blind person abusively swears at someone who offers help
mean that nobody gets offered help? Of course not. Is it true that we are
watched and that we can to some degree positively or negatively affect what
people think about others who are blind? Yes, but again, this is all a
matter of degree.

I think we should give be employers and members of the general public some
credit for exercising the same intelligence we do when listening to
advertisements, reading pamphlets, or being persuaded by someone with a
definite point of view. We filter it, think about it, and we do our best to
go beyond what we are able to perceive as our biases and prejudices. I think
we have tried in our literature to answer the questions is literature
against us, is history against us, and is the public against us. I think the
answer is no. We are not at the top of the stairs, but at least we are
climbing, and I think that getting to the top of the stairs means being as
honest as we can about the problems that we face and our ability to solve
them if we work together. 


_______________________________________________
blindtlk mailing list
blindtlk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindtlk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/cindyray%40gmail.com