Amazon newS media
I’m just logging some offensive remarks about disability made on the site of the Waldorf Critics, (who’ve just banned us for objecting to this and similar material).
This “free-speech public forum” advertises itself as “an information resource for anyone interested in Waldorf education who wants to hear views from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner. Subscriptions are open to the public and postings are not reviewed in advance. Not for the overly sensitive.”
The site claims not to allow ad-hominem arguments, which they define as meaning “that you speak freely about the topics, but not about the other subscribers.”
So far so good. But the following exchange took place there last week and was not objected to, even though we’ve now been banned for questioning it, and trying to defend ourselves from the severe mobbing we’ve just endured there, before our last post was “reviewed in advance”.
In fact we only went there at all because we were being discussed.
Pete Karaiskos was chastising me for being shocked when I saw my child being approached from behind and repeatedly pushed under the water. He pointed out that some information was missing from a video we made nearly three years ago that was featured in the NZ Herald last week. (I’m making it sound as if Pete’s comment was polite - it certainly wasn’t).
He questioned my actions as the omission in the video could have made it look as if I did not act to protect my child, whereas I’d left that bit out of the video because, in trying not to identify the bullying child, I’d decided (almost three years ago) that the footage was naff, so left it out thus not properly representing my own actions.
Pete was later not open to hearing my acknowledgement of his point but I’m a human being who likes to learn and I’d defend that as a general approach because if you look at these videos, the one in the Herald, (now corrected using the original footage) and this one, Mr Gove’s State-Funded Anthroposophy, you can see how far we’ve come.
Pete can’t though, and here’s the exchange which he and the other critics (many people read this list) felt was entirely reasonable.
Nobody made any objection whatsoever.
Trying to rubbish me because I was shocked at what happened to my daughter, is
just cheap. I'm a walking impaired person, and your statement is personally
pretty offensive.
Are you talking impaired too? Your mouth seems to work. Did you yell for HELP?
I did shout, but I was in shock, for the next 14 hours. That's just a fact -
rubbish it how you want. Do you understand the concept of shock? You could look it up.
Ah... but you claimed you couldn't walk - so therefore, couldn't do anything.
Now, it's a different claim.
No I didn't at all, that's just a total misrepresentation of what I said. Where
did I say that?
Why right here dear:
[He linked back to the first comment above “I'm a walking impaired person”]
Please don't call me dear, I'm not your dear, you're not even crazy about me.
And saying 'mobility impairment' isn't the same as saying 'can't walk'. Whoever
said it was but those who don't know?
You said "WALKING IMPAIRED". Anybody can look back and see what you said...
what is the point of changing your story NOW? Are you kidding me? And you
expect credibility? Do you think nobody is going to verify what you're saying?
HERE OF ALL PLACES? Are you here to frustrate people with your obtuseness?
This is a case of somebody relentlessly shooting themselves in the foot with
every post they make... (that would explain the walking problems)
Disabled people should be aware of this person’s attitudes and the fact that others who read and contribute to this list, and who are fairly numerous, will not object to members using your impairment as a way of trying to attack and discredit you.
Oh, and apparently it’s not ad-hominem. Go figure.
Cheap shot anyone?
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
The Three Ages of Woman