[nfb-talk] PC language (was: Learning Ally)

Fri Apr 15 19:40:49 UTC 2011

John, go to the Faith Talk list, and read my recent post.
I said, that we needed to lose the term, "visually impaired."
What's wrong with blind?
There's a diference, between sight, and vision.
We have vision, (purpose,) not sight, (what we can see physically.)
If we didn't have a vision, we wouldn't have the organization, or the
Blind Driver Challenge.
Blessings, Joshua

On 4/15/11, John Heim <john at johnheim.net> wrote:
> Right but there are two problems.. One is that we don't really know why RFBD
> changed its name. Their press release, still quoted below, tends to indicate
> that it was for PC reasons. But I doubt that very many people find the word
> "blind" offensive. It would seem odd to me if people found the word dyslexic
> offensive but not being part of that ccommunity, I can't say. More likely,
> they wanted to get rid of the word blind because it doesn't make it clear it
> includes partially sighted people. I don't know if you count that as PC or
> not. I do not.
>
> The other problem, as I see it, is people getting worked up against PC
> language in general. One message in this discussion asserted that people are
> afraid to talk because of all this PC stuff. To say the least, that has not
> been my experience. Quite the contrary, people today seem far less concerned
> with offending their listeners than they used to be. If there is any
> chilling effect from PC language, I have yet to see it.
>
> About the only real problem I've seen is that some schools have been forced
> to change their mascots in order to avoid offending Native Americans.  Its a
> tough issue. For one thing, indian mascots were routinely offensive at one
> time. On the other hand, it seems a shame not to have teams named after
> tribes which are a huge part of our nations history. Then there is the issue
> of how many people have to agree for something to be officially offensive.
> Its not the majority. If there are 10 people on an island, 9 men and 1
> woman, its not okay for them to take a vote to say that rape is not a crime.
> It may be legal but its not right.  This is what James Madison referred to
> as the "tyranny of the majority" and its why he worked so hard for the Bill
> of Rights. So the question is if only a few Native Americans are offended by
> indian mascots, should they be done away with?
>
> Likewise, you could ask  how many people have to say they don't like being
> called "blind" for it to be an offensive term? There is no right answer to
> that question.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
> To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls
>
>
>> John:
>>
>> Although I, too, find "Learning Ally" as a name vapid, inspecific and
>> less-than-descriptive ofwhat function the institution's (under whatever
>> monicker) function is.  Moreover, I suspect that Learning Ally honchos are
>>
>> laboring under the misconception that changing the name to ignore all the
>> constituent disabilities the institution serves avoids the stereotyping
>> and type-casting of said disabilities.  But I can certainly understand
>> where you're coming from and can understand why you consider it a teapest
>> in a tempot.
>>
>> The point is that insofar as I am aware, Learning Ally never *asked* the
>> blind if they objected to the name Recording for the Blind or Recording
>> for the Blind and Dyslexic.  Although I disagree with the rationale for
>> the name-change, what bugs me fundamentally was that I wasn't asked
>> whereas apparently other disability groups were.
>>
>> I shall say no more on the topic since the real way to handle this is by
>> convention resolution.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>> Behalf Of John Heim
>> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 11:37 AM
>> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls
>>
>> I don't know what the big deal about using PC language is. I don't see why
>> anybody would care if RFBD changes its name. If African Americans want to
>> be
>> called African Americans from now on, that's fine by me.   If a woman
>> refers
>> to herself as over weight instead of obese, what's wrong with that? This
>> whole PC language thing is a tempest in a teapot  dreamed up by people who
>> like to mind other people's business.
>>
>> The surest way to tell people that you're more interested in your own
>> convenience than their feelings is to refuse to use whatever label they've
>> chosen for themselves.  Its not going to hurt you to call African
>> Americans
>> by that name if that's what they want. It might not change anything but it
>> won't hurt you either. Just do it and quit whining.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 6:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls
>>
>>
>>> Frankly, I don’t think it matters one bit what language they use—it does
>>> not and will never change people’s ideas in an of itself.  We all know
>>> what "special" means (with quotes) in "special" education right?  And
>>> "exceptional" (again with quotes) in "exceptional" learner fixed this
>>> how?
>>> It didn’t.  It never will.
>>>
>>> The conflict-adverse (and usually progressively-minded) people behind
>>> such
>>> things seem to be under the impression that if you reduce language that
>>> that which cannot possibly be offensive, then nobody will ever be
>>> offended.  Yet I have seen people refer to people with disabilities as
>>> "crippled and handicapped folks" and do so with the utmost respect,
>>> preserving our dignity as few ever bother to do.
>>>
>>> I have already demonstrated twice the converse.  No matter what term you
>>> apply, if the user of that term has the intent of saying something that
>>> is
>>> offensive, they will do it.
>>>
>>> No problem has ever been solved by redefining language.  Attempts to do
>>> so
>>> are at best panicked attempts to hide a problem someone can’t figure out
>>> how to solve.  At worst, redefining language is used as a willful and
>>> malicious means of redefining an argument to allow for something that
>>> would be seen as reprehensible in plain language.
>>>
>>> Take blatant and unabashed discrimination against a blind college student
>>> on the basis of his disability—to the extreme of willful sabotage of
>>> field
>>> experience work.  Astonishing, disgusting, and it happens far more than
>>> any of us would like to admit, right?
>>>
>>> Let’s redefine some language.
>>>
>>> A blind person is simply a diverse learner.  We welcome diversity!  Our
>>> campus and the program in question feature a very diverse background of
>>> students!  Of course there are a few extreme cases where someone who is
>>> clearly not cut out for a given field, despite solid grades, enthusiasm,
>>> and skill both innate and acquired.  In such cases, the faculty feel it
>>> is
>>> their duty to act as gatekeepers to the profession, particularly when the
>>> profession is one in which there might be some risk.  You understand our
>>> caution, yes?
>>>
>>> The fact that up until the time in question not one single person with a
>>> disability has ever successfully completed the program and gone on to be
>>> employed in the field in at least a six year time span I am aware of in
>>> this case proves nothing, right?  There are a handful of such students
>>> every year.  They fail out of the program, or they just can’t seem to get
>>> hired they finish.
>>>
>>> Of course, nobody will call it what it is, because if you rock the boat,
>>> you could wind up in trouble with the unions—er, I mean, with your
>>> colleagues.  Even colleagues who are generally disliked by most   and
>>> known to be doing wrong to all.  Solidarity!  So nobody is willing to
>>> stand up and say, "These two people actively discussed how to ensure that
>>> this student fails the program," even if they will report such details
>>> privately.
>>>
>>> So people go about pretending there is nothing to see.  We don’t look too
>>> deeply, because we don’t like what we will find.  All it takes to cover
>>> the whole thing up is a simple facade.  Just redefine a few words and you
>>> don’t even have to lie.
>>>
>>> But even when it isn’t something that onerous, it still is an attempt to
>>> hide a problem.  I’ve heard that "Learning Ally" came about because
>>> people
>>> who are dyslexic don’t want to be classified as having a disability.  But
>>> they want their disability to be accommodated, they just don’t want to
>>> have to admit they’ve got one.
>>>
>>> Why?  What is so wrong with having a disability?  In the Federation, we
>>> understand this one quite well.  It’s the reason our training centers
>>> don’t
>>> allow people to use folding canes they can stuff out of sight at a
>>> moment’s
>>> notice (aside from the innate superiority of a rigid cane when actively
>>> using one and how that superiority aids in training.)  People are ashamed
>>> of their disability, and that is the problem.  Does changing the language
>>> allow them to NOT be ashamed?  No, it simply allows them to pretend, as
>>> long as everyone else goes along with the game.
>>>
>>> But you ARE blind.  And people ARE going to notice.  Either that or else
>>> they’re not going to know, and instead they’re going to just think you’re
>>> stupid.  Same thing with dyslexia.  As a dyslexic myself, I would rather
>>> people think I was dyslexic than stupid.  Of course, we didn’t know about
>>> my dyslexia until I was an adult because people had previously chalked my
>>> difficulties up to blindness and the use of visual techniques (which were
>>> all I learned as a child.)
>>>
>>> Changing the language doesn’t fix the problem, it only hides it.
>>>
>>> Joseph
>>>
>>> (If this isn’t my most coherent email ever, I’m up past my bedtime.)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:57:19AM -0700, Gloria Whipple wrote:
>>>>Ryan,
>>>>
>>>>I like your friends and what they had to say.
>>>>
>>>>I hate political corrections!
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for sharing!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Gloria Whipple
>>>>Corresponding Secretary
>>>>Inland Empire chapter
>>>>nfb of WA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>>>>Behalf Of Ryan O
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:37
>>>>To: 'NFB Talk Mailing List'
>>>>Subject: [nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls
>>>>
>>>>Hi all. The recent name change of Recordings For the Blind and Dyslexic
>>>>has
>>>>fostered a very interesting debate on a friend's facebook page. It put me
>>>>in
>>>>mind of a speech by Dr. Jernigan some years ago. I decided to post some
>>>>of
>>>>the debate here and see what others think.
>>>>
>>>>I will begin by posting the release from RFB&D, followed by some random
>>>>comments from my friend's Facebook page. Since I am posting the comments
>>>>without the permission of the various authors, I am changing their name.
>>>>
>>>>Here is the press release from RFB&D.
>>>>
>>>>Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic - Learning Ally For Blind Students
>>>> April 12th, 2011
>>>>Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic (RFB&D), a 63-year old nonprofit
>>>>organization serving over 300,000 individuals across the U.S. with
>>>>learning
>>>>differences and reading disabilities, announced that it has officially
>>>>changed its name to Learning AllyT- effective April 11, 2011.
>>>>
>>>>The new name is accompanied by a tagline - Making reading accessible for
>>>>allT - and was selected after months of research and focus groups were
>>>>conducted with hundreds of RFB&D student members, parents, volunteers,
>>>>education professionals and other stakeholders.
>>>>
>>>>"Changing the name of a long-established national institution such as
>>>>RFB&D
>>>>is not something we entered into lightly," says Andrew Friedman, Learning
>>>>Ally's President and CEO. "Our members themselves were the key driver of
>>>>this transformation. For one thing, our mix of users today includes
>>>>individuals with diverse learning differences that are outside the scope
>>>>of
>>>>our former name.
>>>>
>>>>"Most important of all," adds Friedman, "our members have expressed loud
>>>>and
>>>>clear that they don't wish to be labeled or typecast with a specific
>>>>'disability.' They just want the same opportunities to succeed that
>>>>others
>>>>enjoy. Our new name goes to the heart of supporting their desire to learn
>>>>and achieve."
>>>>
>>>>Background: Recording for the Blind was founded in 1948, with a mission
>>>>to
>>>>provide equal access to the printed word for veterans and others with
>>>>blindness and visual impairment. Early volunteers recorded textbooks onto
>>>>vinyl discs and tape reels. During the 1990s, RFB extended its mission to
>>>>include access for people with dyslexia and learning disabilities, and
>>>>changed its name to RFB&D. As its library grew to become the largest of
>>>>its
>>>>kind in the world, RFB&D made audiobooks accessible on cassettes, CDs and
>>>>downloadable formats with extensive navigation capabilities for students
>>>>with reading disabilities. Users accessed their books with specialized
>>>>assistive technology devices from a variety of vendors.
>>>>
>>>>In 2010, RFB&D embraced the latest mainstream technology, making its
>>>>content
>>>>accessible on Mac and Windows computers for users at home or in school.
>>>>And
>>>>in February 2011, a new application was released enabling its entire
>>>>library
>>>>of downloadable audiobooks to be played on Apple iOS devices including
>>>>the
>>>>iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. All of this is good news for the widening
>>>>base
>>>>of students, parents, teachers and schools that Learning Ally serves.
>>>>
>>>>"We truly cherish the values of our founders and stand on the solid
>>>>foundation built by countless RFB&D volunteers and donors," says Andrew
>>>>Friedman. Today we recognize that as many as one in five individuals
>>>>learn
>>>>differently. Now as Learning Ally, we continue to support our blind and
>>>>dyslexic members, while positioning the organization to be even more
>>>>inclusive - as an advocate and friend to people for whom access and
>>>>reading
>>>>are barriers to learning."
>>>>
>>>>About Learning AllyT
>>>>
>>>>Founded in 1948 as Recording for the Blind, Learning Ally serves more
>>>>than
>>>>300,000 K-12, college and graduate students, as well as veterans and
>>>>lifelong learners - all of whom cannot read standard print due to
>>>>blindness,
>>>>visual impairment, dyslexia, or other learning disabilities. Learning
>>>>Ally's
>>>>collection of more than 65,000 digitally recorded textbooks and
>>>>literature
>>>>titles - delivered through internet downloads and various assistive
>>>>technology devices - is the largest of its kind in the world. More than
>>>>6,000 volunteers across the U.S. help to record and process the
>>>>educational
>>>>materials, which students rely on to achieve academic and professional
>>>>success. Learning Ally, a 501(c)3 nonprofit, is funded by grants from the
>>>>U.S. Department of Education, state and local education programs, and the
>>>>generous contributions of individuals, foundations and corporations. For
>>>>more information, call (866) 732-3585 or visit
>>>>http://www.LearningAlly.org.
>>>>
>>>>>From Facebook:
>>>>
>>>>Starbuck
>>>>cannot believe that RFB&D is changing their name to, "Learning Ally."
>>>>Stupid
>>>>politically correct society!
>>>>
>>>>Weatherman
>>>>Politically correct or just shorter to say?
>>>>
>>>>Starbuck
>>>>Based on their own article about it, I'd say PC. They took a very
>>>>roundabout
>>>>way of saying they don't like to place labels on people. The B and D in
>>>>this
>>>>case standing for blind and dyslexic.
>>>>
>>>>Weatherman
>>>>Really? Racial slurs are ok then? Sexist remarks are perfectly
>>>>acceptable?
>>>>PC can definitely go overboard and I always advocate clarity in
>>>>communication, but I think individual groups have a right to decide how
>>>>they'd like to be addressed or described.
>>>>
>>>>Starbuck
>>>>I dont' think either Dana or I are saying that racist/sexist remarks are
>>>>all
>>>>right. But when we get so very touchy about offending someone, it goes
>>>>overboard. People in today's society are afraid to use the word, "blind,"
>>>>for example. I can't tell you the amount of euphimisms I've heard for
>>>>that.
>>>>When I refer to someone as being black, rather than "African American,"
>>>>God
>>>>knows I'm not trying to put them down. Racism makes me angry, to put it
>>>>mildly. But it seems our society is so very afraid of stepping on toes
>>>>now
>>>>that we've swung to the other extreme of what you're saying.
>>>>
>>>>Weatherman
>>>>I agree with you Alicia, and perhaps "we" have swung to far. I was
>>>>probably
>>>>causing a bit of trouble :). I just don't think being PC should be
>>>>outlawed.
>>>>It is rooted in something quite sensible.
>>>>
>>>>Hieronymus Bosch
>>>>Weatherman, you are right in the fact that pc was probably rooted in good
>>>>intentions. But what is it they say about the road to hell...
>>>>
>>>>Starbuck and I are all too familiar with political correctness gone to
>>>>the
>>>>extreme. Neither she, or I, or any blind person I've ever heard of or
>>>>encountered asked to be called, "visually impaired." Yet, here we are in
>>>>the
>>>>21st century, where every agency and service for the blind uses the term,
>>>>"visually impaired." Where did the term come from? I can't answer it, but
>>>>I
>>>>can hazzard an educated guess. The sighted professionals in the
>>>>rehabilitation field came up with that term to soften the blow of
>>>>blindness
>>>>upon the public. But I can tell you that the only thing that has changed
>>>>in
>>>>my 30 years of living has been the language used to address our issues.
>>>>People are far more careful about what they say and how they say it, but
>>>>the
>>>>careful maneuvering through the minefield of sensitivity only serves to
>>>>high-light the fact that the problems still remain.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not a black guy, or gay, or female or a lot of things, but the
>>>>softening
>>>>of the language over the past three decades or so has done nothing to
>>>>convince me that political correctness serves as a means to foster any
>>>>sort
>>>>of meaningful form of dialogue between groups. The labels are still
>>>>there.
>>>>they are just a lot more fancy than they used to be.
>>>>
>>>>Perry Mason
>>>>Harry, I saw your comment after posting my first one. I don't want to
>>>>monopolize this topic but had to respond to it. In my experience, the
>>>>label
>>>>of visually impaired versus blind actually makes a difference. When
>>>>interviewing for jobs, or talking with professors about accommodations,
>>>>the
>>>>term visually impaired seems to get you less resistance from them. They
>>>>seem
>>>>to ask fewer questions about how you do X, Y, and Z, and seem to be more
>>>>willing to trust you when you explain that you have the situation under
>>>>control. Perhaps this is because the term "visually impaired" allows them
>>>>to
>>>>think you have more vision than you do, but whatever the reason, I like
>>>>the
>>>>results. That being said, you know I'm not a fan of our ultra PC society.
>>>>
>>>>Hieronymus Bosch
>>>>Perry, you are making my point for me. If your professors are in deed
>>>>less
>>>>resistent to the term, "visually impaired," as opposed to the notion of
>>>>you
>>>>being, "blind," then that speaks more to their discomfort with your
>>>>disability as a whole, rather than the phraseology.
>>>>
>>>>Perry Mason
>>>>Harry,
>>>>I don't think we can separate people's discomfort with a condition from
>>>>the
>>>>way in which it is discussed. The terminology you choose when talking
>>>>about
>>>>traits you have provides important context for others. Specifically, it
>>>>helps them interpret the significance and quality of that trait to the
>>>>person speaking. This is especially true if the audience has not
>>>>experienced
>>>>the trait in question themselves. Suppose a woman were to say that she
>>>>was
>>>>not slim when discussing her physical appearance. Doesn't that have a
>>>>different connotation from obese? And if so, can you be faulted as a
>>>>listener for coming to a different set of conclusions about her depending
>>>>on
>>>>the terminology she uses? As a hypothetical, this woman is describing the
>>>>exact same body with both sets of phrases.
>>>>You could argue that this means people are more uncomfortable with
>>>>obesity
>>>>than they are with an overweight person. I'm sure that's true to an
>>>>extent,
>>>>but a lot of people don't know what to think before she starts talking.
>>>>They
>>>>have no personal experience with being heavy. Thus, the next thing to do
>>>>is
>>>>to utilize language the speaker chooses as a guide for understanding what
>>>>and how she thinks about it. Her thoughts then act as a guide for the
>>>>ways
>>>>in which I should react accordingly.
>>>>I think this is the same with blindness. The word "blind" has a lot of
>>>>negative connotation surrounding it, and some of it does not have to do
>>>>with
>>>>disabled people at all. Examples include being blind drunk, being robbed
>>>>blind, blindsided, etc. These common expressions do not deal with the
>>>>physical condition but are used to discuss crappy events in every day
>>>>life.
>>>>Thus, by using the term "blind", a speaker is associating himself with
>>>>negatives, indicating to others that he views his lack of vision as such.
>>>>The next logical reaction is to approach the condition with fear and
>>>>distrust.
>>>>I therefore conclude that phraseology helps people decide how
>>>>uncomfortable
>>>>to be or not with the actual substantive issues. Granted, it's only one
>>>>factor, and we should not use language that entirely hides the plain
>>>>realities of life.
>>>>Just some food for thought.
>>>>
>>>>Hieronymus Bosch
>>>>Perry, once again, you have succeeded in making my point for me. Ironic
>>>>that
>>>>you are employing fanciful wording and logical contortionism to make your
>>>>arguments, while all the while high-lighting the real problem. To me,
>>>>this
>>>>is the essence of political correctness. *grin*
>>>>
>>>>Interesting that you use the example of an obese female as a comparison,
>>>>since society tends to stigmatize obese women in the same way that it
>>>>stigmatizes blind people. A woman may choose to refer to herself as "not
>>>>slim," "obese," or "fat," but in the end, the person she is talking to
>>>>knows
>>>>she is overweight, whether he/she is fat or not.
>>>>
>>>>You are correct when you say that the obese woman has no power over the
>>>>person's reaction to her self-description, but the cumulative effect of
>>>>her
>>>>condition still has an impact on the person in question. He/she still
>>>>knows
>>>>that this person is overweight, and whether we couch this in harsh or
>>>>euphemistic terminology, the end result is the same. The imagery
>>>>associated
>>>>with obesity; ugliness, gluttony, laziness, still lingers. The fat jokes
>>>>still remain, but now they are whispered and snickered at privately
>>>>rather
>>>>than being trumpeted in public. No, I can't experience life as a fat
>>>>lady,
>>>>but I can witness the societal evidence around me that indicates that she
>>>>is
>>>>still viewed with contempt.
>>>>
>>>>Life is the same when you are blind. You can contort yourself to more
>>>>easily
>>>>operate within the comfort level of your professor, potential mate or
>>>>perspective employer, but in the end, did it make a difference in being
>>>>hired whether you used the word, "blind," or "visually impaired?" Most
>>>>blind
>>>>people will answer with a resounding, "no!" That is evidence enough to
>>>>illustrate the fact that political correctness has not helped us get
>>>>where
>>>>we need to be.
>>>>
>>>>Perry Mason
>>>>Hi Harry,
>>>>In your previous message, you wrote something that I want to respond to.
>>>>"A woman may choose to refer to herself as "not slim," "obese," or "fat,"
>>>>but in the end, the person she is talking to knows she is overweight,
>>>>whether he/she is fat or not. This is correct, but the goal was never to
>>>>hide her weight issue. It was, instead, to frame it in a less threatening
>>>>and negative light. Next, you write: You are correct when you say that
>>>>the
>>>>obese woman has no power over the person's reaction to her
>>>>self-description,
>>>>but the cumulative effect of her condition still has an impact on the
>>>>person
>>>>in question. He/she still knows that this person is overweight, and
>>>>whether
>>>>we couch this in harsh or euphemistic terminology, the end result is the
>>>>same." I have to disagree with your conclusion. Your own language
>>>>indicates
>>>>how you feel about yourself. This, in turn, effects how others perceive
>>>>you
>>>>and treat you. So, if a woman says "I'm obese", and another says "I know
>>>>I'm
>>>>overweight or not thin"," they are likely to get different sociological
>>>>reactions from their peers and employers. Yes, it's correct that others
>>>>will
>>>>still joke about this physical imperfection. Everything else can be made
>>>>into a joke, so obesity doesn't escape that unfortunate fact. There's one
>>>>more aspect I wanted to respond to. In the last line of your message, you
>>>>talk about jokes being whispered to one another, instead of trumpetted in
>>>>public. You seem to say that this, too, winds up with the same cumulative
>>>>effect. I'm not sure this is the case either. If someone knows they will
>>>>get
>>>>in hot water by making fat jokes, they will be careful who they say it
>>>>to.
>>>>We still have bullies, but this potentially means that others, who have
>>>>not
>>>>yet made their minds up about how to treat the woman in question won't
>>>>get
>>>>the idea that it's acceptable and socially appropriate to laugh at her.
>>>>Instead, she has a better chance of introducing herself, humanizing her
>>>>and
>>>>the condition, and being treated more normally by many people. She will
>>>>not
>>>>convince the prick who would have laughed openly in our non PC society,
>>>>but
>>>>she very well could influence those not contaminated by such drivel if it
>>>>was not openly allowed. You may think that people are going to do what
>>>>they
>>>>want, regardless of regulations and any degree of political correctness.
>>>>However, people are astoundingly seceptable to peer pressure, even as
>>>>adults. In fact, a sociologist conducted an experiment where a person in
>>>>authority commanded people to shock a volunteer who made mistakes
>>>>completing
>>>>a task. Each time a mistake was made, the voltage was increased. Even as
>>>>high as 320 volts, nearly three quarters of people pushed the button,
>>>>simply
>>>>because someone else said so. Can you imagine this effect if we allowed
>>>>jokes about those we perceive as ugly to be trumpetted? It would be like
>>>>the
>>>>Milgram effect on steroids. Can political correctness hide one's
>>>>condition
>>>>and perceived flawes? No it cannot. However, I am of the belief that it
>>>>does
>>>>change the ways others view you and them.
>>>>
>>>>Hieronymus Bosch
>>>>Perry, it appears we're going to have to agree to disagree about this
>>>>issue.
>>>>You are approaching it from an idealistic perspective, while I am viewing
>>>>it
>>>>from a more practical standpoint. Your analogy with the electroshock
>>>>study
>>>>is interesting, but ultimately, it only amounts to a hypothetical that
>>>>can
>>>>never be quantified in a social framework.
>>>>
>>>>My original premise was that political correctness has not aided the
>>>>blind
>>>>in our quest to overcome many of the stereotypes facing us. Our
>>>>staggeringly
>>>>and consistently high unemployment rate bolsters my argument. I don't
>>>>know
>>>>what your current employment situation is, but I look forward to
>>>>revisiting
>>>>this debate with you in a decade or so.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers, my friend.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>nfb-talk:
>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/ladygloria%40webba
>>>>nd.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>nfb-talk:
>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> nfb-talk:
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nfb-talk:
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nfb-talk:
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.net
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfb-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/jlester8462%40students.pccua.edu