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

[David Andrews]

John:

I think much of the impetus for the name change 
came from people who were dyslexics and have 
other learning disabilities.  I think most of us 
know we are blind, and accept that (smile,) and 
are proud of it.  Learning Ally says it held 
focus groups, but as Mike says, no one we knew was in any.

Personally I think the name change was stupid 
because it doesn't really say anything, and it 
throws over 60 years of branding down the drain.

However, I believe that about two thirds of 
Learning Ally's users are LD, so we as blind 
people aren't really driving the bus.  We were in 
the name, they started it for us, and certainly 
have raised money in our name, but our needs are 
increasingly becoming secondary to them.

Dave

At 12:12 PM 4/15/2011, you 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 neverr 
>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 sabootage 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 colleaagues 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. >>> >>>>Fro 
>m 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. >>>