posted
I was wondering what this bit here meant, exactly:
quote:One band included a musician whose cerebral palsy would normally have kept him from marching; but he was accompanied by an assistant who steadied his body and kept him in line as he marched along. That's the kind of inclusion that makes sense. They sacrificed one kind of perfection in order to gain another and better one.
The sentence "That's the kind of inclusion that makes sense" suggests that there is a lot of nonsensical "inclusion" out there. I don't disagree with this premise, but I'm curious to know where other people (including OSC, of course) draw that line.
I'm also confused by "They sacrificed one kind of perfection in order to gain another and better one." Why was it better? Because it was inclusive? Was he a good musician?
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is some inclusion that doesn't make sense. I would argue that insisting that a child who is emotionally disturbed to the extent that he is constantly disruptive and violent should not be in a regular classroom. To include him would be sacrificing the good of the rest of the class for the goal of inclusion. The child himself would probably be better served by being in a specialized classroom setting with teachers who have been trained to work with him.
But, a mildly autistic child who only needs the additional help of a trained teaching aid to be successful in a classroom can probably add a lot to the classroom environment, and that is a case where inclusion does make sense.
The problem is this can't be solved by any blanket policy "We're going to include all kids with autism but not include kids with cerebral palsy." It just doesn't work that way, it has to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a demarkation that I can say "all on this side are correct, all on the other side have gone too far." It's something that I think should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a sliding scale. But the "inclusion" movement was trying, for a time at least, to do truly vile things like destroying the school where my son attended, which was totally devoted to the needs of CP kids, and "mainstreaming" kids for whom the very idea was cruel and stupid.
If my son, for instance, had been taken out of Gateway and put in a "mainstream" class, then demographically he would likely have been the only severely limited CP kid in it. Nonverbal, unable to hold a pen or type, he could not take part in classroom discussions or fulfill assignments. Would they install a waterbed for him in every high school class? Who would change his diaper, and feed him at lunch? Who would lift him out of the bed into his wheelchair and take him from class to class?
In church, we "mainstreamed" him to a degree - but did not expect - indeed, refused - to include him in the Scouting and sports activities. They were ludicrously irrelevant to him, and his presence would quickly have become a burden and a cause of resentment to the able-bodied boys. Why would I put them, and Charlie, through such a needless torment?
I remember when Charlie Ben went to his first meeting at a school for CP kids. Up to then, the only children he had seen were different from him - his older siblings, the kids at church. He couldn't do ANYTHING that they could do; none of them were in a wheelchair. Then, suddenly, he was in a room with four other kids in support-chairs like his, and he laughed and laughed with delight. HE WAS NOT ALONE!
There ARE kids with marginal disabilities who SHOULD be mainstreamed AT THEIR OPTION. But to demand inclusion as if it were a prescription that fit every need, and to try to dismantle institutions designed to help those for whom "mainstreaming" and "inclusion" are meaningless terms, is to make the real world servant of the theory.
So yes, there is such a thing as "bad inclusion."
But in this particular case, all I meant was this: A marching band strives for perfect symmetry, row and file. To have an assistant marching with one boy BROKE that perfection. But it created another kind of perfection. The boy was a good enough musician to include (at least we heard no wrong notes!); he could even walk the walk. But his cp made it hard for him to stay in line. But with an assistant, he could do it. In effect, the band asked the audience to treat the assistant as INVISIBLE, so that THEN they could see the perfection of the band, including that boy with cp.
Even now, you know, I see kids with cp that other kids avoid or feel strange around, because their voices are hard to understand, or because they walk funny and look weird. But I think: Oh, if only my son could have had that much control. And, Oh, look how well that kid is doing - if only his friends understood how every moment of simply moving forward down the hall or framing words that can be understood at all costs him enormous effort and concentration - surely they would admire him and listen to those painfully formed words!
I yearn for inclusion for everyone; but I recognize that love and compassion do not require us to put those who are truly unincludible into painful, isolating situations where no one can possibly form a meaningful social bond. Charlie loved being at Gateway, surrounded with kids who were in his league - some of them even LESS well off than he was. He was gentle and helpful and kind to his friends who couldn't do as much as he could do; he was playful and funny, among kids and teachers who knew him well enough and had TIME enough to get his practical jokes and appreciate his enjoyment of the good things of life that were within his reach. At Gateway, HE WAS INCLUDED.
But we also saw that he knew, and felt great pain about, what his body would not let him do. He went through puberty, the change of his voice, the flow of hormones, the coming of desire. One babysitter who watched out for Zina was only a few years older than Charlie, and we realized that he had a crush on her (she did not); it broke our hearts that we knew, and he knew, that she could never see him that way.
I remember when we transferred our old 8mm home movies to tape, and played them on the tv in Charlie's room (which was also the family room, so he'd be, yes, INCLUDED in all our family viewing). As the movies played, we realized that he turned away, his face set and firm (as close to anger as he got) whenever his own face and body appeared on the screen. He did not like to see images of himself. Perhaps he saw himself in a different way inside his own mind.
HE KNEW what he was missing. And he missed it.
Now imagine putting him in a school where he would be reminded of his differences and losses every day, every minute, constantly shamed before others because even his bodily functions were out of his own control. His only useful social function would be to occupy the bottom of the geekiarchy, so that other kids would no longer be the absolute butt of the jokes. And it would keep him from ever seeing another like himself.
Now, the "inclusionists" and "mainstreamers" would immediately cry out in faux innocence, "But we would never force such a thing on a child like that!" But the fact is, they DID try to. They DID try to dismantle the school that was his haven and help. They DID try to pass regulations that would require schools to make a place for him in the mainstream setting and thereby deny funding to specialized schools. And they cared not a whit for the cruel damage they would do.
They only get nice and tolerant and understanding when confronted, face to face, with an example of what their cruelly rigid "dogoodery" would actually do to a real person. Then they deny any evil intent. But ten minutes later, they're back to insisting that there's only ONE way to be "inclusive."
A long answer, folks. But I absolutely mean it when I talk about the right kind of inclusion - because there is most definitely a wrong kind. And the very fact that you took umbrage at my saying things the way I said them suggests that you really believed that there was NOT a wrong kind of inclusion, and were actually being critical of me, not because you understood the first thing about what you were talking about, but because I didn't fit into your little procrustean definition of what a virtuous modern human should say in public.
You need a different set of definitions before you start making someone an offender for a word.
quote: You need a different set of definitions before you start making someone an offender for a word.
I don't see anything in this thread that leads me to the conclusion that anyone was jumping on you, Mr. Card.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
This is the key to me. I have been all for inclusion, except for when it just doesn't make sense.
I also agree with Belle that severely emotionally disturbed students should not be mainstreamed. Like OSC's son, they need something else. (edit to make it clear I am not saying OSC's son was ED!)
Another thing which burns my biscuits is when administrators think they are complying with a district's inclusion policy by just putting kids in the classroom with no support. Yikes. This is happening more and more. It is NOT inclusion. It is saving money.
[ April 09, 2005, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fourth or fifth person we hired at my old company was deaf - his hearing aids allowed him to hear loud sounds that might require attention, but he could understand no spoken words. He was good at reading lips, but even better with cued speech. He could talk, but it had that "clipped" sound that I'm guessing is common with deaf speakers (I've only met 5 or 6 - they all had it).
He demanded inclusion in high school. The school board gave him the option of a special school or regular school with no help at all. His parents arranged for a translator some of the time, and with other kids to help him out when he needed it. He sat in the front. This worked, because he didn't actually need much help. But without that help, he could not have functioned as a student. I think by his senior year they got the school board to do the right thing.
This is, I think, an example of the right kind of inclusion and of the school resisting it for really no good reason except cost. I don't disagree with OSC's conclusions about his son's needs at all. I simply add it to provide an example going the other way.
I was in marching band, so I caught what you meant by that right away, but not everyone had that experience so I can understand why they might have been confused. We had a girl in band with us who have one leg 3 inches shorter than the other, but she marched in most of the parades with us despite her limp. Some people had a problem with that, because it was noticable, but I always admired her determination....it was painful for her to march over a mile in step with us, but she did it, and did it well.
When we marched in teh Orange Bowl Parade in 1986, she did march....the rules stated that she couldn't just march for the televised part, all marchers had to march the entire route..it was over 3 miles, the longest we had ever done. She coulnd't march that far, but she came, and she performed at every other venue with us.
That is inclusion, as it should be.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have read the posts up to OSC's response. I have not read the posts after.
(Goo Boy is an alternate nick of mine, chosenm as I mentioned in Verily the Younger's thread, to be more "fanboyish.")
Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you almost totally.
Except for this piece:
quote:And the very fact that you took umbrage at my saying things the way I said them suggests that you really believed that there was NOT a wrong kind of inclusion, and were actually being critical of me, not because you understood the first thing about what you were talking about, but because I didn't fit into your little procrustean definition of what a virtuous modern human should say in public.
You need a different set of definitions before you start making someone an offender for a word.
You are incorrect in believing that I took umbrage or that I am an "inclusionist" in the evil way that you describe.
I simply (and clearly) asked where you draw the line, when you described this inclusion as a type of perfection. Specifically, as I posted, I wanted to know if the kid was an adequate player, or if they included a performer who could neither march nor play simply for the sake of Inclusion. If anything, I was concerned that you might be in favor of Inclusion at all costs, but rather than assume you were, I started a thread asking questions designed to help me discern exactly where you stood on this issue.
I fight this battle on a daily basis, both as a parent and as a teacher. I am the parent of two special needs girls whom I adopted out of a medical foster home. They entered foster care immediately after their premature birth, caused by their birth parents' physically combative lifestyle. They have emotional and learning delays, and last year they began kindergarten for the first time. The kindergarten near us is an "academic" kindergarten, where most kids arrive already knowing how to read and write a little bit. They have extensive homework each night. My kids, after almost two years in kindergarten, will remember most of their letters, can recognize all of them, and can count to at least thirty dependably. They are just starting to be able to recognize a handful of words. But the demands placed on them have been unrealistic, in my opinion. They get frustrated, they get embarrassed, and they get bored when the kids are asked to do academic seatwork that may as well be in a foreign language to them. When this happens, they sometimes act out. At least one of my daughters is very conscious of the fact that she is a year older than her classmates, who laugh and disbelieve her when she tells them she is seven. I'm sure eventually she will learn to lie about her age, but I'm not going to be the one to teach her to.
Last year, my other daughter's acting out reached the stage where the school could not control it. In addition to not being set up to handle her intellectual needs, they were not equipped to handle disruptions of any severity. When she would become disruptive, they would send her to the office. Of course, everyone in the office was busy working, so they would sit her down with a coloring book or in front of a tv showing a Disney movie on video. They would also coddle her and seat her on their laps. Needless to say, she learned that if she was frustrated and bored in class, she could act up and be sent to the office, which was much more fun.
Several Hatrackers have met my kids. Most, I think, would tell you that they are quite well-behaved. But in school last year, both of my daughters had significant behavioral issues. Of course, at home, we know how to say "no" to them, and we do not reward misbehavior. Last year, we started getting more than just dirty looks from the other parents of kindergarteners. We got phone calls at home, letters, stuff dropped off on our porch. Books on how to raise your kids. Questions on why our kids were so "bad." I chronicalled all of this last year.
Eventually, we had one of our daughters classified as "Emotionally Handicapped" so that she could be sent to a special EH unit in another school. Within a couple days at that other school, they took her out of the EH unit and "included" her. Not like at the local school, but in a meaningful way. They tailored their academic expectations to fit her abilities. If she misbehaved, they sent her to a dean who put her in a room with no TV, no books, and no toys. She was told that she could stay in that room as long as she wanted to shout and misbehave, and that she could return to class when she was ready, but in that room she would have absolutely no attention from any other person. They had to do this maybe twice in the first month, and once or twice the remainder at the year. They were incensed at us, because they felt that she was clearly not EH, and wondered what kind of callous parents could get their kid labeled incorrectly like this. They were much more understanding when we explained the situation to them, and when they saw how palpable her fear of being returned to her old school was.
At the end of the year, however, they had no choice but to recommend that she return to her old school, since they could not justify paying for continued services for her. However, they helped us set up an IEP forcing the local school to deal with her disciplinary issues in the same manner they used. (IMO, you should not need an IEP for this: they way the "special" school dealt with her was simply common sense, and should be used for all disruptive children.
This year things have gone much better. Also, word seems to have gotten around that they are not the way they are due to our incompetence, but due to their background, which means other parents are a little more understanding and kind to them, instead of judgmental and ugly. They are also closer to being caught up with their younger peers, though they are certainly not there. However, the one who changed schools last year was recently moved out of ESE math into regular math because she was being so successful.
Still, yesterday I learned that the same daughter who had had to go to the EH unit the year before had acted up in class, and her IEP was not followed because the ESE people were too busy, and she was sent to the office, where she colored. When they asked her if she was "ready to go back to class," she told them she was not and continued to color.
-o-
Asd a teacher, I have had children who could not read or add or multiply (or dress themselves) placed in my math classes. I then am required document what "ESE Strategies" I am using to teach them the curriculum, on the absurd supposition that any strategies will have them successfully complete a high school math curriculum.
When I taught Algebra I a few years ago (I currently teach upperclassmen), I had a student who had in her IEP that she could use a calculator. Fine, no problem, I said. Arithmetic is not a central focus of this class. That kind of inclusion makes sense to me. However, the very first unit is a review of pre-Algebra concepts, like, say, adding decimals, where allowing a student to use a calculator is pretty pointless. I asked if I could create an alternative assessment for her. Nope. I asked if I could exempt her from the single arithmetic-oriented quiz. Nope. I had to let her take it with a calculator and earn a hundred for arithmetic that her calculator could do. I felt that was absurd and unfair.
-o-
With all due respect, OSC, I would say that you had no idea what my beliefs were, or my little procrustean definition of what a virtuous modern human should say in public. I will tell you that my little ideas include the silly notion that one should at least not insult people before one is certain where they are coming from, and that one should perhaps read people at face value until one has reason to do otherwise.
I have seen people post some truly nasty sentiments about you on this board. Things that, even if they believe, they should be more civilized than to post here. But I have also seen you, on more than one occasion, take offense where I could not personally see what the cause for offense was.
quote:The sentence "That's the kind of inclusion that makes sense" suggests that there is a lot of nonsensical "inclusion" out there. I don't disagree with this premise, . . . [Emphasis added.]
and
quote: I'm also confused by "They sacrificed one kind of perfection in order to gain another and better one." Why was it better? Because it was inclusive? Was he a good musician? [Emphasis added.]
I'm a little bewildered at how I came across as having a nasty inclusion-at-all-costs veiled PC agenda.
posted
Icarus, your post really wouldn't come off as offensive at all to someone who was reading it at face value, and I expect (although of course I'm not trying to speak for OSC here) that when Card returns to this thread and reads your post he'll feel chagrined at his initial assumptions; I know I would had I made them.
Have you ever had an ingrown toe-nail? You know how they radiate heat, and are so sensitive that even the gentlest touch feels like someone is grinding it under their heel? I would guess that OSC must be so used to taking flack from people about this issue that it's a metaphorical ingrown toe-nail for him. That's the only explanation I can come up with for his assumptions that really makes sense.
posted
Icarus, why did you post under a new name? And I think you're playing the victim a bit too strenuously. I got the sense from the first post that "Goo Boy" felt OSC was being a hypocrite. Even if you were a new poster, not clarifying that you have children who are affected by inclusion policy is a bit unfair.
But if you'll indulge a comment- Do I recall correctly that your children are Asian? I wonder if a child of another race would be tolerated in this sort of borderline behavior, whereas an Asian child is expected to be better than the average. Speaking as an Asian looking person.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know - I can't quite figure out how to infer umbrage on the part of the author from the contents of the first post.
Maybe the rhetorical questions ("Why was it better? Because it was inclusive? Was he a good musician?") sounded sarcastic? I guess I could see that. But it didn't strike me that way at all.
And I had no idea who Goo Boy was when I read the thread.
posted
mothertree, I made the Goo Boy nickname in response to Verily Cooper's thread about sounding too fanboyish. I commented on how I use the things that mean a lot to me as computer names, passwords, prompt questions, and such. Then I did a little thinking, and it struck me as odd, then, that none of my Hatrack names was OSC-related. I decided to rectify that. I didn't want an Ender- or Alvin-themed nickname, because I always rather like going for more obscure references. I tried to think of something that would fit, and I remembered the short story "Dogwalker" that I had recently read and enjoyed. I really liked the idea behind the character of Goo Boy, because in many ways I see myself as a child at heart, except when I say that, I mean something much more complicated than that trite expression.
I made it clear in that thread who I was, and then posted in several other threads that also made it clear who I was. (For instance, the mayfly thread to Cor, my wife.) Other hatrackers have noticed and played around with the comic possibilities, as in the case of Elizabeth's Welcome thread--in case it's not clear, Elizabeth and most of the posters in that thread are aware that both names are me, and that's why she is goading me with the Red Sox stuff.
I have occasionally in the past decided to use a different nickname for an extended period--just like you have. The most notable alternate name I have used has been Megachirops. I base this use in part on the mood I am in--again, as I suspect you do, given comments you made about continuing to use Pooka and about choosing mothertree. I found I immediately liked posting as Goo Boy, and did so almost exclusively for two days. The only exceptions were a first post on a different computer, where I forgot to switch names, and the thread about Man of La Mancha, where I posted as Icarus so that the people I specifically wanted to get the attention of would be more likely to see it. But it was my intention, otherwise, to use that name for a while. Incidentally, I posted as Goo Boy in a thread on the other side where I criticized people for their rude behavior in attacking OSC on Hatrack.
I am wondering if you are suggesting, or simply wondering, whether I had some nefarious purpose in mind in starting this thread under this nickname. I did not. I can imagine that it might appear that way if I had been critical of OSC in my first post, and if it had been my first post not as Icarus. Neither of these is the case, however.
In any case, should I expect a different response from OSC whether a post is made by Icarus or by Goo Boy?
quote:I got the sense from the first post that "Goo Boy" felt OSC was being a hypocrite.
I can't really find anything new to say to this other than to express my bewilderment. See my previous post in this thread, where I specifically quote that first post. I specifically say that I don't disagree with the p.o.v. I seemed to be inferring from OSC, and if anything, I thought he might be more pro-inclusion than I was. I think this is pretty clearly evident from my original words. I certainly don't see any indication of umbrage or of an accusation of hypocrisy.
What I specifically said was that I wanted to know more about what he, and others, believed. I don't see where this implied question suggests a hidden agenda, or requires further explanation on my part.
quote: Even if you were a new poster, not clarifying that you have children who are affected by inclusion policy is a bit unfair.
Could you please explain why, given my statements that there was not any sort of a trap here, and that I had simply asked for a clarification of an opinion? The only reason I included this information at all was to make it clear that I did not disagree at all with OSC's opinion, as he had assumed I had.
EDIT TO ADD: Specifically, he stated that I didn't know the first thing about what I was talking about (though I had, in fact, asked for clarification and not really talked about anything). It is for this reason that I felt I needed to share my particular "expertise" in the realm of inclusion--because my knowledge had been called into question. Again, why was it necessary to state this to ask a question?
quote: And I think you're playing the victim a bit too strenuously.
I'm sorry that you feel that way. I felt the same way when you previously left hatrack, upset about your online "enemies."
Probably the most influential poster at Hatrack, who is held in high regard by most if not all of the posters here--and whom I too have a great deal of admiration for--suggested I had nasty motives, a small mind, and unquestioned assumptions. I don't know of a scale on which to clarify what is or is not an overreaction on my part, so I don't know that we can resolve this disagreement, mothertree.
-o-
My children do not appear particularly Asian. I would say they appear latina.
quote: Maybe the rhetorical questions ("Why was it better? Because it was inclusive? Was he a good musician?") sounded sarcastic? I guess I could see that.
I could completely see how those questions could be interpreted as sarcastic (although they were not intended that way).
However, they would be, then, coming from a point of view that agrees with OSC's, not one that disagrees with it. In other words, if they are read with that sarcastic intent, they would suggest that inclusion at all costs without regard to appropriateness is a bad thing, which actually is the point of view I have. I would not think that this would be offensive to OSC.
Let's look just at those questions for now - pretend the rest of the post doesn't exist.
quote:Why was it better? Because it was inclusive? Was he a good musician?
This could be interpreted as you thinking OSC thought it was better only because the person was a good musician. And that therefore the person's capabilities were what made it OK. And that, therefore, the flip side is that people without good capabilities shouldn't be included.
If he thought you thought he held that opinion, and he thought that you were annoyed with that opinion, then he could think that you held the opposite opinion.
And the opposite opinion would be that people without good capabilities should be included.
There's a lot of double negatives and third-order opinions in that, but I think it's a possibility.
Like I said, I didn't read them as sarcastic at all, but it's a possibility.
posted
I recognized the Goo Boy as an OSC character, but I haven't had very good coverage of hatrack lately. I couldn't think changing screen names around was by itself nefarious. But I honestly didn't have any idea that Goo Boy was an existing hatracker, let alone any particular hatracker. I didn't know Portabello was Porter either. I'm just saying that the post sounded like someone who believed in inclusiveness for politically correct reasons rather than someone who suffers personally from lack of consistent public policy.
But if you think about how Goo Boy got to be Goo Boy, that may shed some light on why you comments on this particular subject may have set off our host.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for the clarification, both of you. Both of you have shared with me things I had not thought of. The thought that Goo Boy was a disabled character did not even occur to me.
However (and here I am primarily addressing mothertree, since she claims to also have read my post as an attack), what of the part where I specifically said what I was reading into the quote, and that I did not disagree with it:
quote: The sentence "That's the kind of inclusion that makes sense" suggests that there is a lot of nonsensical "inclusion" out there. I don't disagree with this premise . . .
And why not take me at face value? Why not simply respond to my request for clarification, and get mad at me later if I come back and am overtly obnoxious? Obviously these aren't questions you can answer for another poster, so I am really just thinking aloud here.
-o-
mothertree, when you saw that it was me, was it your belief that I have the sort of character that would use subtle, indirect, anonymous attacks?
posted
I didn't know Goo Boy is Icarus, and I didn't get the sense of criticism that OSC seemed to from his post. I had the same thought as Noemon about the pain of this for him, and I remembered that the world changed at Charlie Ben's death.
I had meant to come back earlier and try more clearly to make amends here, but I've been asleep for much of the day. Post-travel snoozies.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone stop jumping on point out that OSC made a mistake band wagon! His recent bout of posting is one of the few good things about this place.
No more "Yea, I thought your post was perfectly normal, OSC's just being crazy" posts!
There's no point in going on and on about it, wait till he gets back to explain himself.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I got the sense from the first post that "Goo Boy" felt OSC was being a hypocrite.
Before you "came out" I thought you were someone trying to point out the lettuce in the teeth thing. Which isn't an attack, it's just trying to be helpful by criticizing someone.
After I learned it was you, I wondered why you were going by Goo Boy. I don't think you did it to lay a trap, just that you seemed to be reacting as if we should have know it was Icarus and remembered about your children. Which I instantly did, but I have no idea whether OSC would.
There is actually one more step, where I learn that it could have been reasonably expected that I would know who Goo Boy was, which means my post prior to that would have been distorted.
And I didn't leave Hatrack because of my enemies, I left Hatrack because I had become an enemy. It comes easy to people sometimes. I still really respect you for adopting your girls, and I'm sorry about the problems your school is giving them.
A larger problem on the issues is that it is difficult to sort out handicapped needs from misbehavior. Of course, that issue is a touchy one for me and gets into my leaving GC.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jebus, I don't see a bandwagon; I see mostly discussion. Certainly it's not all one-sided, and it doesn't strike me as particularly critical of OSC either. I see people who say my words could have been taken as criticism and others that say they don't see that in my words, but even those who do not think I was or am out of line have generally not been critical. They have, if anything, been OSC apologists (and I use that word in the religious sense, not in the sense of an actual apology).
Of course I look forward to a response from OSC, in which I will find out if he misinterpreted me or if he really thinks I am an ass. Of course we can't really resolve that particular question in his absence. But we can come to other understandings. For instance, mothertree and Dag both showed me readings of my first post that had not occurred to me. Similarly, if multiple people can see how a negative reading of my words could come about, I think it's valuable both for me to point out what I really meant, and to point to parts of my original post that make my meaning clearer.
-o-
mothertree, OSC seemed to clearly feel attacked. You said that you had also read my post as being critical of him, and that I was overplaying the victim. That is why I assumed you were interpreting my actions as an attack.
quote:. . . just that you seemed to be reacting as if we should have know it was Icarus and remembered about your children.
Not at all. As I said before, my children were irrelevant to the conversation until OSC suggested that I didn't know the first thing about what I was talking about. I certainly didn't expect everyone to know who Goo Boy way, though it was not a secret. I did not expect OSC to know who Goo Boy was, and even if I had been posting as Icarus, I would not expect OSC to know the details of my daughters' educational struggles, given that I posted them at a time when OSC was not frequenting this forum. I didn't expect anybody to take them into account, because I really didn't think they were relevant.
(Of course, our backgrounds and prejudices are relevant, but we can hardly post a life's story on every thread, and predict what will be important. What we can do is bring things up at the moment we feel they become relevant.)
quote: A larger problem on the issues is that it is difficult to sort out handicapped needs from misbehavior.
I'm not sure, without more clarification, what you mean by this. I understand if you don't want to get into it, because you say it is touchy for you.
quote:One band included a musician whose cerebral palsy would normally have kept him from marching; but he was accompanied by an assistant who steadied his body and kept him in line as he marched along. That's the kind of inclusion that makes sense. They sacrificed one kind of perfection in order to gain another and better one.
I agree. I also think that the issues raised in such a statement speak of ones priorities and character.
quote:Storm Saxon: I just wish I had the guts to say what I was really feeling. You are absolutely right that he quite often takes offense at innocuous comments.
I wonder if he ever bothered to apologize to Tom or will apologize to you?
Hey, I thought it was some special Hatrack initiation right where OSC or his Son must jump down your throat over some innocuous comment before you can truly be part of the Hatrack community. It's something that is needed so that inclusion will "Make Sense"™. Posts: 527 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Steev does his very best to make it unlikely that OSC will be on anything other than the defensive when/if he returns to this thread . . .
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, snarky comments aside, I can tell that OSC was rather passionate about the subject matter and probably a bit on the defensive about it for some reason but I think we all need thicker skins and a bit of empathy toward each other.
I’m not saying that it’s appropriate to jump down each other’s throat over passionate topics however, I’m also saying it’s not worth getting offended over them either.
Posts: 527 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
For what it's worth, my first and fourth replies to this thread were the ones more directed at OSC. The others have been to clarify posts and to respond to things people have said. In particular, I have been responding to mothertree because OSC's not around to discuss this with, but she said she had a similar first reading to his.
So, I guess it would be a lie to say that I'm not offended, but I'm not trying to start a flame war here. I'm really hoping that this is all just a misinderstanding, as a couple of people have suggested, and that I can leave this conversation feeling that it is straightened out, and that my favorite author does not think I am an ass.
quote: Hey, I thought it was some special Hatrack initiation right where OSC or his Son must jump down your throat over some innocuous comment before you can truly be part of the Hatrack community. It's something that is needed so that inclusion will "Make Sense"™. [Smile]
I haven't said anything after my last post because I don't want to drag this thread out, but if no one else will say it, I have never seen Geoff jump down anyone's throat. Sarcasm when he's annoyed, yes. Actually get angry and 'jump down their throat' for no reason, no.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading the short story "Lost Boys" and the attached essay in Maps, I cried for a boy and a family that I didn't know.
I feel very fortunate that I have two healthy kids and that I've never had to watch a loved one suffer through childhood with a disability.
Despite my good fortune, I realize that I'll miss out on the amazing gifts that the Cards found in their son and in themselves.
And it made me realize how absolutely ignorant I am of what they and their children understand as second nature.
But the written expression of the love, the unique brand of selfless love that went both ways, made me not understand, but personify those people who I'd previously and politely not seen. I'm embarrassed to admit how invisible they had been to me.
Since that time, I've sought out other stories; read more from others who have experienced the same gifts that the Cards have. And though I have no delusion that I understand or can even empathize, (because I my empathy is still mainly of imagined pain) I make a point of seeing and teaching my children to see, to say "Hi" and to be ready to receive as well as give a smile.
Thank you for introducing us to Charlie Ben. He has made me a better person and is an important instrument in making my children better people.
quote: I haven't said anything after my last post because I don't want to drag this thread out, but if no one else will say it, I have never seen Geoff jump down anyone's throat. Sarcasm when he's annoyed, yes. Actually get angry and 'jump down their throat' for no reason, no.
Well I admit I haven’t seen him do that either but I did get him a bit on the defensive when I posted something that was only intending as an explanation of how I understood something. By the time I discoverd what had happend it was too late to correct it. In any case I should have probably left him out of that snarky comment.
I hope that Icarus and Mr. Card will have a private chat to work out their misunderstandings.
Posts: 527 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*second strategic bump, because seeing one of my favorite Hatrackers and one of my favorite authors having a misunderstanding is a bit like watching the 'rents fight*
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoah, just found this thread Thanks for the nice comments, people who said them. I know I had one recent situation where I reacted snarkily to a post that, upon rereading, proved not to deserve it, but I hope I recovered from that well enough ...
Why is it that compliments always seem to make me insecure about the trait that is opposite the one I'm being praised for? I need to shut up and take it gracefully.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to second the "Geoff is a cool guy" statement.
I think that one thing we need to remember is that OSC has really only been posting significant amounts of material on this side of the river for a week and a half. I don't know how much he's been lurking or what other forums he visits, but if he's ever seen discussions regarding his opinions anywhere else--and even some of them here--then I really don't blame him for being defensive. I remember seeing him get absolutely trashed on Slashdot when they posted an article on the Alvin Maker RPG. It make take some time to get used to the fact that we at least try to rein in our hostility toward each other--I don't see a lot of that elsewhere.
posted
That's right, give that newbie--Uncle Orson--a break. Anyone can be a bit reactionary on topics they feel strongly about, and there is no doubt how OSC feels about this topic.
There is a tough line between inclusion and abandonment. There still remains the question of whom do we allow to make up that decision.
The extremes are out. We won't kick kids out of school who are not physically perfect, nor should we force those with severe handi-caps to be pushed into the mainstream.
Do we right laws delineating who is and who is not mainstreamed?
Do we leave it up to the parents? That seems the best way, but I have heard the arguments by the lucky parents, "Why should they get to decide what school their kids get to go to with our money." The decision on who makes the decision is the difficult part.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Post-travel snoozies.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
