Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!think.com!yale.edu!yale!bunker!wtm
From: mgflax@phoenix.princeton.edu (Marshall G. Flax)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: (3 of 3) Responses to three posting responding to me
Message-ID: <16343@handicap.news>
Date: 21 Jun 91 18:51:52 GMT
References: <16147@handicap.news>
Sender: wtm@bunker.isc-br.com
Reply-To: mgflax@phoenix.princeton.edu (Marshall G. Flax)
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 68
Approved: wtm@hnews.fidonet.org
Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 16343

In article <16147@handicap.news> Gary.Petraccaro@f90.n129.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>Index Number: 16147
>
>William,
>
>     Have I noticed in Marshall's message that he wants both to condescend
>to us because we're blind and defend us because we're blind?

I truly hope not; it certainly was not intended, but your question has
forced me to reexamine myself.  It's difficult and sometimes dangerous
for me to speak about a group of people who've suffered much discrimination
when I have suffered so little, but I'm not going to run away from the
challenge.  (I have personal reasons thereof.)

>                                                             He, himself,
>says that we have existed in a power relationship with regard to the
>sighted and that we've been on the negative side of that relationship.

Is this not true?  If it is not, then I am in serious need of education.
I thought that: 1, the blind have endured custodialism for centuries;
and 2, custodialism is bad.  If either of these premises is false,
please tell me.

>Unfortunately, in opposing you're position, he then has the timerity to
> inflict that same state upon us with himself in (guess which position?).

Oh, I understand.  My challenging you to a high standard (i.e. to
seriously question the origins of your use of the word "blink") is
subjugating to all blind people?  Is it oppressive to confront you
seriously and honestly?  I'm not protecting you or pussy-footing around.
I'm being blunt; I'm not sure how much more (or less) respect I'm
supposed to show.

>What I find utterly fascinating about such crypto-totalitarian
>positions is the way those imagining themselves superior
>hypocritically condemn others for doing exactly the same thing.

"Crypto-totalitarian"?  I am more paranoid about encroaching government
than anyone I know.  I am telling you what *I* think, and telling you to
think it through for yourselves.  I try to treat the readers of this
group the same I would treat anyone else on a computer network.  I am
not always successful -- neither am I free of hypocracy, but I'm not
part of a deep plot to install a dictatorship.  I may be crypto-anarchic
or crypto-buddhistic, but I am not crypto-totalitarian.

>There is no attempt at impowerment, here, simply the old "I'm
>doing it for you're own good" repressive crap we've heard over
>and over again.

It's not my job to empower you, and I'm not going to try.  Only you can
do that for yourself.  I'm on the outside -- I don't share your
experiences.  But I am capable of analyzing what I read and hear and
see.  I am capable of pointing out options.  I'm not forcing you to read
my posts, I'm not forcing you to call all of your friends with sight
"sighties" or to stop calling your friends without "blinks."  But why
should I stop reaffirming some reasons for the former and against the
latter.  I don't read any repression here, except for my being called
"crypto-totalitarian" which gave me a horrible feeling in my stomach for
the rest of the day and some lousy dreams that night.

marshall
-- 
/****************************************************************************/
/* Marshall Gene Flax '89       (609)258-6739  mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU */
/* c/o Jack Gelfand|Psychology Dept|Princeton University|Princeton NJ 08544 */
/****************************************************************************/