quote:I'm not saying there's not reason. The joke itself is reason enough to create some fear. I was merely trying to show that in spite of the joke, I don't think that we have to worry about the implications.
I understand that...but why not?
One of your reasons why there isn't anything to fear is pretty flimsy: President Obama has lots of advisors. Well, who selects those advisors - or more appropriately who selects the people who select the advisors, depending on what level we're talking about?
So the idea that one should not be afraid of the implications of a man because the advisors that man selected will protect us from those implications...well, suffice to say I don't think that's very persuasive.
As for your other reason - it was just a joke - well, that's slightly less unpersuasive, but not by much, because I kind of seek a higher level of dialogue from the President. Even when it's lighthearted.
The argument behind the advisors is that it is their job to make sure that that the President doesn't screw up policies. Making policies that work against the disabled hurts politically, so they try to make sure he doesn't do it. The odds are that he'd listen to his advisors better judgment in spite of his prejudices. I highly doubt that Obama had a litmus test when selecting his advisors and asked, "Are you interested in making policies that harm the disabled." There are some smart people in his administration, and I doubt that they're going to stay silent if he went for that agenda. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure his agenda will include improved government assistance for the disabled, but I really don't think people have to be afraid he'll go out on a rampage.
And on the second point, I want a higher level of dialogue from our President as well. I think the joke was in poor taste and he did a poor job trying to make up for it. That said, I don't think that the joke showed his true beliefs on the matter because there are many people who make those jokes just for the 'edgy' nature of them.
My purpose is not to say Obama did no harm. He screwed up and he hurt a lot of people's feelings. I'm simply saying that while it's cool to be ticked at him for the joke, I don't think we have to worry that he's going to destroy the programs aimed at helping the disabled.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hope that for the most part, our President can live quite happily in a world of higher dialogue. But I'm also quite happy when he comes down and talks about his pick for March Madness. He's not a robot, and I don't think he should be expected to act like one 100% of the time.
I don't either, but this isn't just a matter of being upset he's not always minding his Ps and Qs.
quote:The argument behind the advisors is that it is their job to make sure that that the President doesn't screw up policies.
I understand the basis of the argument you're making. My point is that it's not persuasive, for the reasons I've given. Unless of course you're intended to persuade someone that the Obama Administration won't 'go on a rampage'...who was it who suggested they would?
quote:Like I said earlier, I'm not sure his agenda will include improved government assistance for the disabled, but I really don't think people have to be afraid he'll go out on a rampage.
If you're someone who believes that the government is negligent in what it does already, 'not improving' is actually pretty serious.
quote: And on the second point, I want a higher level of dialogue from our President as well. I think the joke was in poor taste and he did a poor job trying to make up for it. That said, I don't think that the joke showed his true beliefs on the matter because there are many people who make those jokes just for the 'edgy' nature of them.
Here's the thing, though: he wasn't cracking open some brews with his buddies or chilling next to the water cooler. I'm less likely to grant a substantive difference between 'short-sighted nature' and actual belief if someone talks a certain way in front of God and everybody, as the saying goes, rather than amongst close friends. It speaks to their perception of what the comfort level is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't disagree with any particular thing in your last post, so I don't see the point in continuing to argue against you. I agree that there's a difference between talking among close friends at to a larger audience of acquaintances, I also am one of those people that think sticking to the status quo on disability policy is a pretty serious mistake. You were also right that no one was saying Obama would go on a rampage. I misread the statement 'fear his views will affect his policy' as a fear that Obama would actively go against policy. That's my mistake, and I'm sorry that I read it wrong.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's the thing, though: he wasn't cracking open some brews with his buddies or chilling next to the water cooler. I'm less likely to grant a substantive difference between 'short-sighted nature' and actual belief if someone talks a certain way in front of God and everybody, as the saying goes, rather than amongst close friends. It speaks to their perception of what the comfort level is.
You know, one of Obama's strengths during the election was his ability to conduct himself in an interview as if he is speaking to a close friend. I think statements like this maybe a side effect of that informal style.
quote:You know, one of Obama's strengths during the election was his ability to conduct himself in an interview as if he is speaking to a close friend. I think statements like this maybe a side effect of that informal style.
So did he simply forget or overlook that he wasn't in an informal setting?
Informal isn't the word I'd use for his style of communication. And, just to be clear, that's not a criticism.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly I think Obama's biggest public weakness is his propensity for being overly casual in unguarded interviews, which leads him to gaffes. Leno is the latest, but the first big profile one was the "clinging to guns and religion" comment which he made seemingly on home turf.
He's had much more success when he knows he has to be serious. The Leno interview was good, it was informative and funny, but one slip of the tongue that I think frankly millions and millions of people DON'T find offensive at all, and he's in the middle of a hoopla. He seems to think sometimes that when he's in front of talk show cameras (or the like), he can say things that don't get treated like they would if he's in front of the White House press corps cameras.
When I heard the Special Olympics comment, my first thought wasn't "My, that insensitive bastard," it was "Woah, he's going to get plastered by the talking heads."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Leno interview was good, it was informative and funny, but one slip of the tongue that I think frankly millions and millions of people DON'T find offensive at all, and he's in the middle of a hoopla.
I didn't find it offensive for my own sake, either. But seeing Mrs. M's remarks makes me wonder. Were I the parent of a disabled kid myself, I doubt I'd be as thick-skinned about it as I am now.
Then I asked myself, "What does that matter?" and I'm having difficulty answering why it shouldn't matter.
Should it matter? Is joking about 'retards' something we shouldn't mind doing? *shrug* I guess I'm swayed towards the PC side of the Force on this one. And I'm not one to be concerned with not offending people for its own sake.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't appear to have popped up in the discussion yet, so I'll jump in with some new news for everyone.
I saw Obama's speech Sunday in Prague, although I didn't go to the square because it was going to take a couple of hours to get past security- I did see the protests in Nove Mesto later in the day, however.
I asked my students (12th graders) about the speech the next day, and a lot of them had seen it, and were highly receptive to it. They were especially flattered by the time Barack took to praise the history of the Czech republic and mollify concerns over NATO and missile defense in central Europe. Czechs have been taking a cautious wait-and-see attitude towards Russian and US relations, and with good cause. The Czech Republic has been divvied up and sold and bartered for centuries without local control, so to hear such supplicating language from Obama was impressive, especially to the younger people I talked to. People here are very pessimistic about politics and world affairs in general, but that partly comes from a low national self-esteem- the fact that CZR as a nation had never really existed before very recently. Czechs have been used to trading one oppressor for another, but to hear Obama couch it as a partnership, speaking of Czechs in the way that American presidents often speak of the British, or other western Europeans, impressed a lot of people here.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Should it matter? Is joking about 'retards' something we shouldn't mind doing? *shrug* I guess I'm swayed towards the PC side of the Force on this one. And I'm not one to be concerned with not offending people for its own sake.
At the risk of appearing blind to all evil in regards to Obama, I didn't even think this was the point of the comment. It was that Leno was treating him like he was in the special olympics by saying "no, no, good job!" Obama was responding to the patronizing language. Perhaps that's not the best thing in the world to say in response to being patronized, but I didn't think Obama was making fun wholesale of retarded or disable people- he was after all, talking about his own lack of skill at bowling.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would note that the phrase "joking about retards" is about three magnitudes more offensive than what Obama actually said.
Perhaps it's a Great Lakes thing; maybe in other states, people really do genuinely believe that the Special Olympics is an event that deserves nothing but solemn reverence or something -- but while it's not a joke I've made myself, this particular joke is made often in my circle of friends and, more importantly, is always made about oneself. It is, however, not a joke I'd expect the president to make.
The unfortunate thing about this, though, is that one of the things that was most bothering me about Obama as time went on is that he clearly started to become more and more circumspect and guarded in his appearances, when I firmly believe that we sorely need our presidents to be less guarded in their public statements. That he's learning to not say anything without running it by a focus group is a lesson I wish he could have done without, but I suppose it was inevitable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would note that the phrase "joking about retards" is about three magnitudes more offensive than what Obama actually said.
Really? A difference of opinion, then. I would agree that 'joking about retards' is more offensive than what was said, but not by as much as you're suggesting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Perhaps it's a Great Lakes thing; maybe in other states, people really do genuinely believe that the Special Olympics is an event that deserves nothing but solemn reverence or something -- but while it's not a joke I've made myself, this particular joke is made often in my circle of friends and, more importantly, is always made about oneself.
You should get yourself some better friends.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:At the risk of appearing blind to all evil in regards to Obama, I didn't even think this was the point of the comment. It was that Leno was treating him like he was in the special olympics by saying "no, no, good job!" Obama was responding to the patronizing language. Perhaps that's not the best thing in the world to say in response to being patronized, but I didn't think Obama was making fun wholesale of retarded or disable people- he was after all, talking about his own lack of skill at bowling.
Orincoro, yes, you are blind to anything negative about Obama. His comment was clearly meant to compare his bad bowling with the (incorrectly perceived) lack of skill of Special Olympics athletes. Simply take out the words "Special Olympics" and replace it with, say, "the CZR" and you'll see that it is insulting.
We don't patronize our athletes in the Special Olympics. They aren't unskilled in the sports in which they compete. In point of fact, President Obama would be soundly beaten by the athletes who compete in bowling.
quote:Perhaps it's a Great Lakes thing; maybe in other states, people really do genuinely believe that the Special Olympics is an event that deserves nothing but solemn reverence or something -- but while it's not a joke I've made myself, this particular joke is made often in my circle of friends and, more importantly, is always made about oneself.
Yes, Tom, we do genuinely believe that the Special Olympics deserves nothing but "solemn reverence or something." It's so distressing to me to hear that people often joke about them and that you think that's just fine. Do you honestly think it's okay if the joke is made about oneself? What does that even mean? That your friends only joke about how they'd fit right in to the Special Olympics because they stink at sports? Are stupid? You really think that isn't hurtful to the athletes or their families? My daughter might not understand if people are making fun of her, but I do and it breaks my heart. And don't think it's okay that you don't make any jokes yourself - if you don't let your friends know that they're out of line, you're just as guilty as they are.
I truly hope that you and your friends never have to go through the worry and stress and heartbreak that comes with having a disabled child. I hope your children never have to overcome the obstacles that my daughter and the Special Olympics athletes do. People like you and your friends make me so afraid for my daughter's future. I'd hope that y'all would have some compassion and decency and realize that there are some things that it is not okay to joke about.
I'm getting too upset, so I'll leave you with the oath of the Special Olypics: "Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt."
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would agree that 'joking about retards' is more offensive than what was said, but not by as much as you're suggesting.
Why? Where I come from, "retard" is a fighting word; "Special Olympian" certainly is not.
------
quote:Yes, Tom, we do genuinely believe that the Special Olympics deserves nothing but "solemn reverence or something." It's so distressing to me to hear that people often joke about them and that you think that's just fine.
Why not? Yes, Special Olympians deserve respect. What they do often requires Herculean amounts of willpower and training -- and even when it doesn't, the Special Olympics still serves a valuable purpose. But to suggest that joking about it should somehow be off-limits is ridiculous; it's like saying that people shouldn't make jokes about soldiers because soldiers are doing something important.
quote:People like you and your friends make me so afraid for my daughter's future.
Think about this for a second. Really? Why? Are you afraid that someone might joke with your daughter about how she's not particularly good at sports, and that this will somehow ruin her future? The thing is -- and I've refrained from saying this so far mainly out of respect for you -- the handful of Special Olympians I know personally are among the first to joke about the Special Olympics. They know they're not all necessarily competing to the same standard, and are -- depending on the individual, of course -- willing to laugh about it. If the hardest thing someone faces is having to live up to the realization that people aren't going to think they'll make it as a professional bowler, I'm not afraid for their future at all.
quote:Why? Where I come from, "retard" is a fighting word; "Special Olympian" certainly is not.
Where you come from, are the two meant in any way differently? They're not where I come from, but I ain't from the Great Lakes:)
quote:Why not? Yes, Special Olympians deserve respect. What they do often requires Herculean amounts of willpower and training -- and even when it doesn't, the Special Olympics still serves a valuable purpose. But to suggest that joking about it should somehow be off-limits is ridiculous; it's like saying that people shouldn't make jokes about soldiers because soldiers are doing something important.
It's not like saying that at all. It's rather like saying people shouldn't make soldiers the butt of jokes because they're doing something good and worthy of respect.
quote: quote:People like you and your friends make me so afraid for my daughter's future.
Think about this for a second. Really? Why? Are you afraid that someone might joke with your daughter about how she's not particularly good at sports, and that this will somehow ruin her future? The thing is -- and I've refrained from saying this so far mainly out of respect for you -- the handful of Special Olympians I know personally are among the first to joke about the Special Olympics. They know they're not all necessarily competing to the same standard, and are -- depending on the individual, of course -- willing to laugh about it. If the hardest thing someone faces is having to live up to the realization that people aren't going to think they'll make it as a professional bowler, I'm not afraid for their future at all.
Heh, you realize what you just said, right Tom? The disabled-perjorative equivalent of, "Well black people say ni@#er too, so why can't I?"
ETA: The thing you don't appear to be addressing isn't that Mrs. M (and she'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure) isn't worried about her daughter's future because people say her daughter won't be good at bowling. I suspect she is concerned about her daughter's future simply because many (most) people think it's OK to make fun of her - directly or indirectly - and not consider it harmful.
You're a smart guy, Tom, so I'm having trouble thinking you didn't realize that, that you actually believe Mrs. M's post was about not wanting people to make fun of her daughter's skill at bowling.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect she is concerned about her daughter's future simply because many (most) people think it's OK to make fun of her - directly or indirectly - and not consider it harmful.
And what I'm trying to get across is that the "Special Olympian" joke, as it's usually delivered, is not actually aimed at Special Olympians. I wouldn't consider its use to necessarily betray any deep-seated dislike of the the demographic, unlike the use of the word "nigger."
That said, like I've said, I think it's impolitic. I think it's a stretch to worry about resulting policy as a consequence, though.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:ETA: The thing you don't appear to be addressing isn't that Mrs. M (and she'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure) isn't worried about her daughter's future because people say her daughter won't be good at bowling. I suspect she is concerned about her daughter's future simply because many (most) people think it's OK to make fun of her - directly or indirectly - and not consider it harmful.
Exactly.
And as it happens, my Aerin is actually freakishly athletic. So much so that the instructors at the childrens' gym we attend want her to move to a competitive gymnastics program at 3 years old (we're not). She's always been graceful and coordinated, but she can't talk. There's a good chance that she'll have to communicate using an electronic device. I live in fear that people will be put off by it and/or mock her for it.
And, Tom, it's very different to make fun of someone who understands what you're saying. You may know Special Olympics athletes who are very high functioning, but many of them are not. If you say something mean about my intellect, say, I'll understand what you mean. I'll be able to shrug it off because I know that I'm not stupid. My daughter wouldn't understand why you were laughing at her if you mocked her athletic ability. She wouldn't be able to shrug it off because she's great at sports. All she would know is that you are making fun of her and it would hurt her.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: It's so distressing to me to hear that people often joke about them and that you think that's just fine.
I've heard the same jokes as Tom, and they are not jokes about the Special Olympics. Nor are Special Olympians, to use Rakeesh's phrase, the "butt" of the jokes. The most common phrasing I've heard is "Yeah, I'm not exactly an Olympic level skier. Not even Special Olympics." Is it offensive, once you stop to think about it or if you have a previous association with the Special Olympics? Absolutely. But are the people who make the joke thinking about the people who compete in the Special Olympics when they say it? No, they aren't. It's offensive in exactly the same way someone saying "You throw/run like a girl" is sexist. Doesn't mean the person saying it has anything against female athletes, does mean they haven't thought through the implications of the statement, and definitely requires an apology if a public figure says it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And what I'm trying to get across is that the "Special Olympian" joke, as it's usually delivered, is not actually aimed at Special Olympians.
Yes, it is. You may not want to think that it is, but it is. If you say, "I'm as bad at bowling as a Special Olympics athletes," you are saying that the athletes are bad at bowling. Your main point might be that you yourself are bad at bowling, but you have also insulted someone else in the process. Saying, "I'm as cheap as a Jew," is insulting to Jews, even if your main point is that you yourself are cheap.
And "as it is usually delivered?" How much do your friends joke about the Special Olympics?
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: ... it's like saying that people shouldn't make jokes about soldiers because soldiers are doing something important.
It's not like saying that at all. It's rather like saying people shouldn't make soldiers the butt of jokes because they're doing something good and worthy of respect.
On the other hand, soldiers *are* made the butt of jokes and a lot, both mean-spirited or not. Same with regular Olympians as well.
If anything, around here people would shy away from making fun of the Special Olympics compared to the former two precisely because its so easy to sound offensive (and there are less scandals to point at, true).
(Not that I'm particularly advocating narrowing the gap, but thats at least my observation around here)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, it's more than just thoughtlessness. What you're saying is that people you know use the Special Olympics to measure lack of skill. That's not right, it's not accurate, and it's callous and hurtful. It's never right to mock, however indirectly you think it is, people who can't defend themselves or understand the nuances of the "joke."
I think I should bow out of this thread now because I'm in tears and I'm more sad and hurt for my daughter than I've been in a long time.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And what I'm trying to get across is that the "Special Olympian" joke, as it's usually delivered, is not actually aimed at Special Olympians.
Yes, it is. You may not want to think that it is, but it is. If you say, "I'm as bad at bowling as a Special Olympics athletes," you are saying that the athletes are bad at bowling. Your main point might be that you yourself are bad at bowling, but you have also insulted someone else in the process. Saying, "I'm as cheap as a Jew," is insulting to Jews, even if your main point is that you yourself are cheap.
And "as it is usually delivered?" How much do your friends joke about the Special Olympics?
This is a fight you will never win. Aside from my feeling that even a self-imposed prohibition on black humor or blue and insulting humor would be worse for disabled people than what they are currently treated to, you will never be able to change the fact that the special olympics are treated, by design, as a different activity than the olympics. Jews don't have a seperate olympics, because there is nothing different about them that matters in sports. Not so for disabled people, and so they will always be seperated, and so, unfortunate though it is, they will always be treated differently. That part of human nature, I don't think you can change.
Now, the President shouldn't even be in that territory to make jokes, but as for us private citizens, you don't have much of a right to cast judgment based on our not being terribly offended by certain jokes. I don't make those kinds of jokes, but I also don't scorn those who do, if I feel that the sentiment is self-depricating, rather than malicious. It would be nice if it would all disappear, but I'd rather choose my battles.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: dkw, it's more than just thoughtlessness. What you're saying is that people you know use the Special Olympics to measure lack of skill. That's not right, it's not accurate, and it's callous and hurtful. It's never right to mock, however indirectly you think it is, people who can't defend themselves or understand the nuances of the "joke."
No, that isn't what I'm saying. It is pure thoughtlessness. The reason I (or Tom) would never make that particular comment, though we've heard it often, is that we have thought about the indirect implication. The people who use it as an offhand comment have not. And if one of them said it in front of you and you said, "my daughter is a Special Olympian, and I don't appreciate you using her as an example of a low bar to meet" 99% of them would be horrified and apologize immediately. And a good number of them would never say it again. (Some might need to have a similar experience 2 or 3 times before it completely sunk in.) Someone without a personal connection saying something doesn't have the same impact. We're just accused of being "PC."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:She's always been graceful and coordinated, but she can't talk. There's a good chance that she'll have to communicate using an electronic device. I live in fear that people will be put off by it and/or mock her for it.
I'll be honest with you: some people will be put off by it and will mock her for it. This is going to happen. It will be absolutely regrettable, and your daughter will not deserve it, but it is inconceivable that she won't get crap from her peers about it. You cannot protect her from that. Don't fear it; expect it, and start now by teaching her how best to react when it happens.
And I want to be clear about this. I think this is a horrible, horrible thing -- but I don't think it's a battle you can fight, or even a battle worth fighting.
There was a kid in my elementary school who would regularly get kicked around because he had a lazy eye. I mean, seriously, a lazy eye; that was the only "abnormal" thing about him, in any way, except one: he reacted badly when people teased him about it, and in so doing rewarded their negative attention with even more attention. And as a consequence, barely a day went by when he and some other kid didn't wind up in the Principal's Office.
It was brutally unfair. But by refusing to accept the unfairness of it, he made his life much, much harder for the two years I knew him.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:She's always been graceful and coordinated, but she can't talk. There's a good chance that she'll have to communicate using an electronic device. I live in fear that people will be put off by it and/or mock her for it.
I'll be honest with you: some people will be put off by it and will mock her for it. This is going to happen. It will be absolutely regrettable, and your daughter will not deserve it, but it is inconceivable that she won't get crap from her peers about it. You cannot protect her from that. Don't fear it; expect it, and start now by teaching her how best to react when it happens.
And I want to be clear about this. I think this is a horrible, horrible thing -- but I don't think it's a battle you can fight, or even a battle worth fighting.
There was a kid in my elementary school who would regularly get kicked around because he had a lazy eye. I mean, seriously, a lazy eye; that was the only "abnormal" thing about him, in any way, except one: he reacted badly when people teased him about it, and in so doing rewarded their negative attention with even more attention. And as a consequence, barely a day went by when he and some other kid didn't wind up in the Principal's Office.
It was brutally unfair. But by refusing to accept the unfairness of it, he made his life much, much harder for the two years I knew him.
I think the idea Tom is presenting is extremely important. Unless your child is like Ender in his/her ability to manipulate others, they require training to deal with people ridiculing them. I really wish my parents had done more for me than, "If somebody is mean to you just ignore them." That council failed me several times when I was growing up, thank God I figured out my way out of it, but it was a long lonely road.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was brutally unfair. But by refusing to accept the unfairness of it, he made his life much, much harder for the two years I knew him.
This seems awfully cynical to me. Instead of claiming that people should accept the unfairness, why not focus on the unfairness and change that? Seems like a much better answer to me.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a fight you will never win. Aside from my feeling that even a self-imposed prohibition on black humor or blue and insulting humor would be worse for disabled people than what they are currently treated to, you will never be able to change the fact that the special olympics are treated, by design, as a different activity than the olympics. Jews don't have a seperate olympics, because there is nothing different about them that matters in sports. Not so for disabled people, and so they will always be seperated, and so, unfortunate though it is, they will always be treated differently. That part of human nature, I don't think you can change.
This argument is remarkable in its lack of persuasion in light of how many times people have said much the same things about other groups, relying at heart most on the idea that 'human nature won't change'.
quote: Now, the President shouldn't even be in that territory to make jokes, but as for us private citizens, you don't have much of a right to cast judgment based on our not being terribly offended by certain jokes. I don't make those kinds of jokes, but I also don't scorn those who do, if I feel that the sentiment is self-depricating, rather than malicious. It would be nice if it would all disappear, but I'd rather choose my battles.
What a strange statement. Mrs. M doesn't have the right to be offended at enjoyment of jokes at the expense of disabled people? She's not talking about making them illegal unless I'm very much mistaken. The question is whether something can be primarily meant in a self-deprecating way and also be completely free from any spiteful or prejudiced coloring as well. You apparently think it can. If I can venture a guess, Mrs. M (and, to an extent, myself) doubt that claim.
-----
Tom,
quote: quote:She's always been graceful and coordinated, but she can't talk. There's a good chance that she'll have to communicate using an electronic device. I live in fear that people will be put off by it and/or mock her for it.
I'll be honest with you: some people will be put off by it and will mock her for it. This is going to happen. It will be absolutely regrettable, and your daughter will not deserve it, but it is inconceivable that she won't get crap from her peers about it. You cannot protect her from that. Don't fear it; expect it, and start now by teaching her how best to react when it happens.
It seems, to put it lightly, unlikely that Mrs. M, being so far as I can tell not complete ignorant of human nature and foresight, hasn't considered that.
Anyway, is it a battle she can fight or win? Who knows? I admit you're probably right that it won't be won. Should that be a bar towards trying? Is any battle over matters of human perspective and human nature ever truly won?
Once upon a time, it was considered just a fact of life that girls were bad at math. Just a part of the human condition. Better at cooking, not so great at converting the fractions involved in recipes. That was a battle I suspect at one time seemed completely unwinnable, and I have no doubt fighting it made many lives much more unpleasant than they would otherwise have been.
----------
quote:No, that isn't what I'm saying. It is pure thoughtlessness. The reason I (or Tom) would never make that particular comment, though we've heard it often, is that we have thought about the indirect implication. The people who use it as an offhand comment have not. And if one of them said it in front of you and you said, "my daughter is a Special Olympian, and I don't appreciate you using her as an example of a low bar to meet" 99% of them would be horrified and apologize immediately. And a good number of them would never say it again. (Some might need to have a similar experience 2 or 3 times before it completely sunk in.) Someone without a personal connection saying something doesn't have the same impact. We're just accused of being "PC."
This, I agree with. It just seems strange to me that the advice of so many people seems to be, "Don't point it out."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was brutally unfair. But by refusing to accept the unfairness of it, he made his life much, much harder for the two years I knew him.
This seems awfully cynical to me. Instead of claiming that people should accept the unfairness, why not focus on the unfairness and change that? Seems like a much better answer to me.
The naivity is just so cute.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Well, it's jebus talking so I'm totally uncertain whether or not you're being serious.
That said, there's nothing naive about what Humean said. He makes no claims about whether it will be easy or even possible. Fighting for a lost cause when you know it's lost ain't naive, it's gutsy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a family friend who has Down Syndrome and competed and won a gold medal in the 4x25 swimming relay in the Special Olympics in Beijing in 2007. It was a great thing. I'm enormously proud of him and think the Special Olympics is a great program.
But anyone who claims that the Special Olympics don't pander to mentally disabled people is either ignorant to the facts or suffering from selective blindness. My friend is good swimmer, but he isn't a world class swimmer by any standard except Special Olympics standards. The very fastest swimmers in the Beijing Special Olympics, had times 50% longer than swimmers in the regular Olympics. That makes them very good swimmers, but not good enough to be winning a regular international competition. What's more, the Special Olympics are divided up into divisions so that everyone competes in a group that is at the same level they are. Each division in the Beijing Olympics had at most 6 swimmers. My friend's team that won the gold medal, finished with a time that was fastest in their division but was also 40 seconds slower than the fastest time in all divisions.
One goal of the special Olympics is to build self esteem and that's done by rewarding many people whose performances would not be noteworthy in general competition. The special Olympics are in part about making everyone feel like they've done a good job.
I listened to the tape of Obama's comment on Leno a couple times now. To me, it doesn't sound like he is comparing his bowling skills to the bowling skills of Special Olympians -- it sounds like he is comparing the praise he is getting for a mediocre (but much improved) bowling score to the praise given to Special Olympians. If that is the case, its a completely just comparison. The Special Olympics do in fact give praise and awards to lots of people whose athleticism would not be noteworthy if they were not mentally disabled. And while that kind of praise is appropriate in the context of the Special Olympics, it just isn't appropriate for the President of the US. He does need us to build his esteem, that makes it pandering.
Now I can see how people could read the comment the other way, as a comparison of his bowling skills to the skills of special Olympians. And if that was how it was intended, then it was inappropriate. But at least consider the possibility that my interpretation is correct before you jump to concluding that Obama was bashing disabled people or is insensitive to their needs.
Certainly, no matter how the comment was intended, it wasn't a particularly sensitive thing to say particularly since Special Olympians are often the butt of very insulting jokes. But occasionally making a comment that can be taken wrong is not the same as being insensitive to the issue.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Well, it's jebus talking so I'm totally uncertain whether or not you're being serious.
That said, there's nothing naive about what Humean said. He makes no claims about whether it will be easy or even possible. Fighting for a lost cause when you know it's lost ain't naive, it's gutsy.
It's totally naive. The world will never be a perfect place. Brushing aside what Tom said about how necessary it is to be realistic of the unfairness of life will lead to nothing but more pain and suffering. The world won't be rose-coloured no matter what colour the glasses are.
That doesn't mean it's not worthy to fight to make the world better in whatever small measure is possible, it just means reality still needs to be faced head-on rather than pining for kindness and justice for all.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was brutally unfair. But by refusing to accept the unfairness of it, he made his life much, much harder for the two years I knew him.
This seems awfully cynical to me. Instead of claiming that people should accept the unfairness, why not focus on the unfairness and change that? Seems like a much better answer to me.
I think a realistic response to this is to try to deal with both sides of the problem. The day we don't have to worry about ridicule is the day people cease to have any evil in their natures. That's not going to happen, and so people need to recognize that they are going to be maltreated unfairly, and that there is still a way to live ones' live happily in spite of it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's totally naive. The world will never be a perfect place. Brushing aside what Tom said about how necessary it is to be realistic of the unfairness of life will lead to nothing but more pain and suffering. The world won't be rose-coloured no matter what colour the glasses are.
No, it's not. What Humean said had nothing to do with believing the world would ever be a perfect place. Furthermore, I didn't brush aside what Tom said, I expressed doubt that Mrs. M hadn't already considered it.
quote:That doesn't mean it's not worthy to fight to make the world better in whatever small measure is possible, it just means reality still needs to be faced head-on rather than pining for kindness and justice for all.
Facing reality head on doesn't preclude fighting to make the world a better place in something more than the 'small measure possible'.
Or, as (no kidding) a fortune cookie told me yesterday, "Better is the enemy of good."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's totally naive. The world will never be a perfect place. Brushing aside what Tom said about how necessary it is to be realistic of the unfairness of life will lead to nothing but more pain and suffering. The world won't be rose-coloured no matter what colour the glasses are.
No, it's not. What Humean said had nothing to do with believing the world would ever be a perfect place.
Agreed.
On a completely different note, I want to post a few links:
During the election, Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain were criticized for the extreme rhetoric they were employing and the hysteria they were inciting at some of their rallies. In a world that faces numerable problems and an economy that is creating more and more of the homeless and desperate, angry and hateful rhetoric can be tremendously damaging and have many unintended and negative consequences. Of course, calls for armed revolutions, comparisons of Obama to Hitler and socialism, a populist rage that has enveloped some, and entertainers who see fear and hate as tools for ratings and popularity aren't new to the political and social fabric of America, but what is new is that few, if any, are there to temper the debate and plead for rational discourse. In some sense, that is the fault of Obama himself because he has failed to lead that minority that is angry right now, but I also think the situation speaks ill of the Republican Party itself. I believe that this country works best when we have two, strong and intelligent political parties with rational ideas and rhetoric to match, and yet, Republicans are no where to be found when a member of their own party, a congresswoman from Minnesota, calls for an armed revolution.
So what do we have to do to fix the problem? Not only do I think we have to temper the anger and fear many Americans maintain these days (I think that's part of Obama's job in the next few weeks), but I think we need strong and principled Republicans to stand up to the extremists in their own party and present to the American people a rational Republican Party. In some sense, after being defeated in two straight elections, Republicans faced a power vacuum that they allowed to be filled by people like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and the extreme wing of their own party. Much like the argument faced by many moderate Muslims about the extreme wing of their faith, Republicans have to stand up and take back their party and their ideas from the extremists, they have to denounce, like John McCain finally did during the election, those who would use fear and anger to prosper or advance an extreme agenda. We need the Republican party to be strong again.
And it would be great if they could do it before someone gets hurt.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's totally naive. The world will never be a perfect place. Brushing aside what Tom said about how necessary it is to be realistic of the unfairness of life will lead to nothing but more pain and suffering. The world won't be rose-coloured no matter what colour the glasses are.
No, it's not. What Humean said had nothing to do with believing the world would ever be a perfect place. Furthermore, I didn't brush aside what Tom said, I expressed doubt that Mrs. M hadn't already considered it.
Ok, but Humean's respose was: "why not focus on changing the unfairness instead of accepting it?" Which does specifically brushes aside what was being said (note, I said nothing about your own reaction to Tom's advice). Tom's point, and the one I agree with, is that it is incredibly important to accept the reality of the situation as it is now. That, I believe, is more important, in fact, than trying to change the world - in terms of an idividual's own happiness, at least.
quote:
quote:That doesn't mean it's not worthy to fight to make the world better in whatever small measure is possible, it just means reality still needs to be faced head-on rather than pining for kindness and justice for all.
Facing reality head on doesn't preclude fighting to make the world a better place in something more than the 'small measure possible'.
Or, as (no kidding) a fortune cookie told me yesterday, "Better is the enemy of good."
I didn't say it precluded it, I just think it's pointless in trying to change things that are unchangeable, which take time and effort away from things that can actually produce real, direct and quantifiable benefits.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Special Olympics comment was weirdly gross. I make a lot of off color jokes, but there is something jarring about hearing even a crack like that come out of an adult's mouth. Obama's glib joke doesn't seem that much better to me than the time Bush made a joke about a woman on Death Row.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take ownership of the jokes I say now, and I mean them, Even the ones that aren't nice. If I hear a kid make a joke about a disabled person, I'm more likely to blame the parents or the culture. With Obama, I think, how has he made it to almost fifty thinking in those terms.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*laugh* I love the wingnut's comments at the end of the article. They really make the piece: "The Saudi king, meanwhile, is a tyrannical entity to which Obama can subjugate his individuality – and through which he can vicariously experience a feeling of power and purpose. This is the process of negative identification that every leftist must practice and that 'United in Hate' documents is at the heart of every leftist's main driving force."
It is my ardent hope that another year of Obama will cause a wave of heart attacks that wipe out half the crazy people in the country. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Off topic for a second - I think it says something about how people view intellectual and brain damage disability vs. physical disability - in how that Special Olympics seem to be less respected than the the Paralympics.
I think I've never heard anyone make a joke about Paralympians - probably because everyone is taught from an early age that it's not nice to make fun of the kid in the wheelchair. But apparently there's less awareness about the value of people with a mental disability. Which, I guess, is exactly what the Special Olympics are there to combat.
I must say, though, I wish they'd come up with a less condescending name than 'Special'.
As for Obama bowing to king Abdullah - well, at least it was polite. The US is trying to mend broken bridges with the Middle East, remember?
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it says something about how people view intellectual and brain damage disability vs. physical disability - in how that Special Olympics seem to be less respected than the the Paralympics.
Really? My impression is that many people don't even necessarily know the difference between the two. Even though I'm familiar with both, a few times in this conversation my mind has equated "Special Olympics" with general disability.
As you mention, it's the "Special" part that people derive humor from, not the actual nature of the individuals involved. They should rename it.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea that President Obama has to vicariously experience a feeling of power and purpose through anyone is pretty funny.
quote:Ok, but Humean's respose was: "why not focus on changing the unfairness instead of accepting it?" Which does specifically brushes aside what was being said (note, I said nothing about your own reaction to Tom's advice). Tom's point, and the one I agree with, is that it is incredibly important to accept the reality of the situation as it is now. That, I believe, is more important, in fact, than trying to change the world - in terms of an idividual's own happiness, at least.
You're getting pretty literal here, jebus. I think perhaps to continue this discussion we'd need a clarification from Humean on what exactly he meant. Right now we're not going off much, though you are technically correct.
Except in the implication that an individual's own happiness should be what we strive for and what we should encourage people to strive for.
quote:I didn't say it precluded it, I just think it's pointless in trying to change things that are unchangeable, which take time and effort away from things that can actually produce real, direct and quantifiable benefits.
Here's my point in a nutshell: there are hardly any major social or political rights which we take for granted today that weren't, at one time or another, considered completely impossible and utterly not worth fighting for (because they were impossible).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the Special Olympics are more of a household name than the Paralympics. I am only vaguely aware of the Paralympics, but the Special Olympics are a household name. That could be a local thing, since we like to think of the Special Olympics as "ours". I agree that the name adds to the ease with which people make fun of it. It was a good name 40 years ago and would be hard to change now, I think.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:there are hardly any major social or political rights which we take for granted today that weren't, at one time or another, considered completely impossible and utterly not worth fighting for
Here's the first obvious problem with that analogy: there is no "right" being defended here.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Here's my point in a nutshell: there are hardly any major social or political rights which we take for granted today that weren't, at one time or another, considered completely impossible and utterly not worth fighting for (because they were impossible).
I think that is very true. I also think that parents of any child should prepare their children to face the world as it is (while working toward what it should be) without letting it break their hearts. I have every hope that Mrs.M is doing just that, but the fact that even a fairly mild conversation about it was too much for her to bear worries me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's the first obvious problem with that analogy: there is no "right" being defended here.
Please, go on to articulate the other obvious problems.
Whether there's a right involved or not has pretty much nothing to do with the point I was making: that many, maybe even most, of the good things in life - rights or privileges or what have you - we take for granted today were at some time in some place considered impossible and not worthy of striving towards.
--------
quote:I think that is very true. I also think that parents of any child should prepare their children to face the world as it is (while working toward what it should be) without letting it break their hearts. I have every hope that Mrs.M is doing just that, but the fact that even a fairly mild conversation about it was too much for her to bear worries me.
Goodness, it's fortunate for Mrs. M then that you and Tom are here to advise her on this matter.
That's pretty snarky, I know. But the sheer presumption that she isn't taking this very basic and fundamental step towards helping her daughter deal with a difficult world is very off-putting to me, and I don't even know the lady.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
