I hadn’t posted before in the thread, so the previous post you refer to was someone else I assume the Reader Writes posts, which highlights what you meant earlier about confusion when people don’t use a name/nickname… such as CQB has no bearing on my own name whatsoever but will be what I use on this particular site, and most likely only this site, makes me identifiable but anonymous, something that Reader Writes didn’t seem to ‘get’

Getting back on topic you make perfect sense and I fully agree, though as long as people are learning to accept disability its all good, over the next 20 years some of the attitudes you mention will be far less common as children are encountering differences far more readily in recent times, such as presenters on TV etc.

As to answering questions. Well, there’s e-mail, mailing lists, web based forums, my blog, or comments on this site.

So yeah, I’m well aware of the bullshit preconceptions that people can bring to this issue. Sorry if I sounded condescending myself, but read back over your initial post (I think that was you), and look at how it comes off. Now, with that in mind, think about how you’d react if it had been your younger brother becoming that admin. There are situations where stuff IS an issue, and others where it’s not. People either tend to see disabilities and such either as completely pervasive, swamping every other aspect of a person’s identity, or they play the “let’s desperately try to not acknowledge it in anyway whatsoever” game — which is, in a way, worse, because it ends up never getting discussed in those contexts where it really IS an issue. Does any of that make sense? I’m weird.

Fitch:
“There may be a right to anonymity (privacy of authorship), but respect and reputation attaches to identity. Anonymity is best used when the argument is good enough to stand on its own merit, but the person making it would rather not be identified as its author or advocate, either to avoid repercussion to themselves, or to avoid their identity affecting the argument. Pseudonymity is when one is interested in a continuous virtual identity (necessary for conversation), but to remain unknown as its human owner.”

Couldn’t agree more. Personally, I have no problem going under my “real” name in regard to my beliefs about IP law/corporate abuses of same. However — and this is equally important — there’s nothing that says I don’t (or haven’t) used usernames or handles, or might not use them in a different context.

I’m pretty sure your outlook is basically the same — good stuff over on your website, btw. Are you familiar with the creative commons licenses? I’ve read the docs on their website, but some of it is still pretty confusing. So how would we go about answering one another’s questions etc.?

Sorry to go off-topic there, but…..well, it’s just been on my mind.

There may be a right to anonymity (privacy of authorship), but respect and reputation attaches to identity. Anonymity is best used when the argument is good enough to stand on its own merit, but the person making it would rather not be identified as its author or advocate, either to avoid repercussion to themselves, or to avoid their identity affecting the argument. Pseudonymity is when one is interested in a continuous virtual identity (necessary for conversation), but to remain unknown as its human owner.

I think you are just debating with the wrong generation here, currently the population is changing from one where this kind of thing wasn’t talked about, to one where we have had to learn to deal with it and accept in a socially short space of time. People are ‘accepting’ it in different ways, some see this lady as brave, some strong, some may well view her as an attention seeker or something.

I am speaking from the position of having a younger brother born with Spina Bidefda, he had no use of his legs at all, I spent 24yrs growing up with him(from 1972-1994). The important thing is I spent all that time I realise now, watching how people reacted to him in situations.. Through the 70’s and 80’s people didn’t discuss it or ask, only young kids asked why he was in a wheelchair etc, parents telling their kids to not be rude, don’t ask about it, ignore it etc, but it started to change. Some saw him as brave as he did some fund raising and other activities not ‘normal’ for a disabled person. He was however just my little brother, I knew him to be a normal average person who’s legs didn’t work.

Society has only spent the last 20years or so realising that handicapped people are perfectly normal folks, but it takes time. Look a the stink on the BBC right now with the Cbeebies presenter with the lower half of her arm missing. Many parents caused quite a stir saying how it ’scared’ their children, I call bullshit as in my experience children are the most easily accepting of anything different, a quick explanation of what the different is, how normal the person is otherwise and they are off, they don’t much care. I hope and pray that more handicapped people make it onto TV, as by kids seeing difference now is how we change the perception.

It doesn’t matter that some right now view it as strong or brave, it doesn’t matter much that it may come over as a little condescending, what is important is them accepting it in their own way, which I can tell you from experience is better than 20years ago. Another 20years and things will be different again, hopefully better.

Hrm, sorry that was so long, its prolly going to look a right wall of text.

The difference between having a net-handle and staying anonymous is exactly what we’ve just run into:
Namely, neither I — nor amybody else reading here — have any idea WHICH “anonymous reader” we’re responding to.
Thus, it’s hard to actually develop anything resembling a running conversational rapport with somebody, because eventually all the anonymous “reader’s writes” blend together. I have no problem with anybody taking Jon up on the availability of anonymous posting. What I DO question is trying to have a “conversation” without an identity — even a “self-created” one such as involved with using a “handle”.

I realize you might not have “intended” the observation to be read the way it was (trust me, I don’t think any of us were “offended” by it). Nor was I in any way attempting to malign your intentions. What I DID highlight — hopefully — was the unspoken assumptions we so often fial to question, such that you’d even THINK it was significant that the woman in question got to be an admin. Of COURSE it wasn’t “even an issue” in that relevant context. What’s a little odd to me is the idea that this would count as “inclusion” or whatever, when it wasn’t even an issue in the first place.

THAT’s why I (somewhat sarcastically) re-framed it in terms of race — NOT as any sort of “social correctness” bullshit (check Wikipedia for the “Euphemism treadmill” and you’ll get an idea of why those sort of wordgames never actually make things better.) It was just an observation on my part is all. No offense meant either way.

Dorothy:
Don’t take this the wrong way, but isn’t your response just the other side of the same coin?
How “courageous” is it for her to simply be open about who she is, instead of playing the “let’s-desperately-not-try-to-talk-about-it-because-it’s-rude” game like that Teacher? She refused either to make it the “central” issue of her identity, OR turn it into a taboo subject.

How is that anymore “courageous” than, say, your offhand mention of your feed?

But yeah, I’d personally suggest picking some kind of Nickname or handle to use if you think your gonna post more often than a few times, so we can at least implicitly figure you’re the same person. Admittedly, it’s not foolproof — remember the infamous “RIAARep” episode?? — but it’ll make things go a lot more smoothly in conversation.

The best thing about identity on the Net, is that it’s optional.

I have enormous admiration for her confidence and style in facing a world which isn’t always that accepting of people with “differences”.

The mention of the handicap post was never meant to be one of social correctness and I am sorry if it has come out that way. It was meant to be taken in its context as exactly as it was said, no more, nor less. Nothing was meant to be implied. It was a comment on how being handicapped affects the viewpoint of one in that condition when looking out at the world and the sensitiveness of that viewpoint.

Headed for Yonder Pond.

They are equal.

Cheers!

Anyway, let’s try a bit of “reframing”:

“One of our discussion boards needed an Admin, and there’s this woman there who’s black ‘in real life’. Now, since it’s [just?] online — and nobody would see her picture or anything, it was nice to see how a black woman got treated like everybody else. Gee, but I never thought about that before.”

Sorry to tell the “reader’s write”, but there’s a hell of a lot of condescension just under the surface of what he/she probably saw as not merely harmless, but actually HELPFUL, observation.

—-

Also, as everybody who reads this stuff here knows, I’m not a fan of the notion of “online” vs. “real” life — like the Piratebay Guy said, “EVERYTHING happens in real life. Sometimes you just happen to be AFK — away from keyboard.”

(Okay, that was a paraphrase, but unless I’m mistaken, paraphrasing is protected under “fair use”. (grin).

Everybody has both strengths and weaknesses at any given time, and, much as it might be surprising to think about, what counts as a “strength” or “weakness” will also vary with the context. Professional body-builder’s sheer muscular mass is one obvious “strength”, but what about less-obvious stuff like how professional jockeys are small and slight-bodied?

Whatever the “reader’s write” was trying to do, the whole thing just stank of “some of my best friends are black people”-style condescention and bullshit, and I, for one, am not afraid to call him or her on it. (Especially since it’s somebody who didn’t even bother with a handle.) Don’t mind me, I’m just in one of my “moods” today I guess.

“Possum Gulch” Over and out

There’s nothing hard about it at all.
It means the world to ANYONE to be treated as an equal.
Some people just need to keep that in mind and get over their own sense of pity, which, in itself, contributes to the “handicapped” label.

Nice!

I give you a case in point. In the past, a forum I was associated with decided they needed a replacement mod. The individual under consideration was handicapped and in a wheelchair in real life. S/he had made no secret of this. What seemed to impress the most was that during the discussion no mention was ever made of the handicap being an issue. It’s on line and should not enter the consideration points unless it is pertinent to the subject at hand. S/he was far more concerned with it than anyone considering the issue. The merits were considered, not on being handicapped but on the tasks needed to be preformed.

It’s hard sometimes to grasp what that means to the handicapped to be treated as anyone else would be treated if they didn’t have a handicap.

“appropriate technology”

Like this, perhaps? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCaqAQYjtVw

Cheers!

heh, i thought it was worth a giggle

Some people need to relax!

The article was all about the perception of “disadvantaged vs. advantaged”.
In the context of that post, I don’t think Aimee herself would have minded that joke.

And that WAS the point.

I suppose, with the addition of some “appropriate technology”, she could achieve an unfair advantage.
…”Go, go, Gadget Legs!”
: )

(I know, I can be a twisted SOB sometimes!)
; )