Category: Jobs and Employment
For anybody that doesn't already know this, social security doesn't give us much incentive to get a job. You have to turn in the amount you make each check, and they deduct that from your social security check. Plus, if you exceed the a certain amount, you will lose your income based medicade. People who draw full disability can work 9 months in a lifetime without turning it into social security, but after that they start deducting from your government check. Some people don't think working is worth the risk of losing their government healthcare.
Just something to consider. If one does get a job, try keeping it under 20 hours a week to limit the amount they deduct from your government check and losing things that are income based like medicade and food stamps and any other government assistance like housing authority and section 8.
Actually as long as you don't exceed having $2000 in a savings account they can't take
your medical benefits. Plus working gives you something to do. Is it a different story with
SSDI?
only that you can work for 9 months without turning it into social security. Also, like you said if you have $2000 they can stop your SSI benefits where you could win the lottery and still draw SSDI.
Exactly why you need to find a well paying job altogether.
Post four, those are my thoughts exactly. Why anyone would wanna live off government checks that barely get them by, instead of getting off government funding completely and getting a job that allows them to live comfortably, is beyond me. I mean hell, I've been at the place before where I was content to live that way. However, once I realized that I wasn't doing anyone any good (including myself), I started to work on changing my situation for the better by looking for a full-time job.
Because that better job isn't always possible to find.
To live you maximize.
If that means a low pay job and government assistants, that is what you do.
It isn't as bad is this post suggest, but does require research and creative thinking to manage, or maximize your work and benefits.
If your going to college keep this in mind. Go for a major that will pay well so you don't have to worry about weather it makes financial sense to work instead of getting SSDI. I realize if your young and idealistic going for a job you don't hate that pays well but won't change the world may not be what you want but these are the choices responsible adults need to make.
I find this mentality baffling.
I understand what Wayne is saying, if getting a low paying job meant you lost a lot of money, I can understand how it would not be an insentive, and might not be financially viable.
But this attitude within the blind community of oh why should we work, don't get a job because you can get government assistance instead really confuses me.
And yes, it absolutely is an attitude problem. There are blind people who don't work for all kinds of legitimate reasons, and I don't think it's my business to make people justify to me why they don't have a job. However, if you choose not to fill out any applications, if you're in your 30's and 40's and have never applied for a job in your life simply because you think it's below you, don't come crying to me or anyone else when society doesn't take you seriously.
I'm not willing to say "oh, sometimes you do have to live like that" to anyone. Because the real heart of the matter is that some people *choose* to live like that.
I'm surprised you even have such an attitude like that Wayne, because I've always known that you know there are ways that people can help themselves if they so desire to. Because let's face it: a government check is not always guaranteed people every single month. You could argue that a job is not always guaranteed people either. However, the difference between having a job and living off government money, is that a job will give people more freedoms, less stress, ETC, that they just cannot experience so easily when they're living off government funding.
So anyway, I say all that to say that people should want more for themselves than living off government funding will provide. I'm not saying that everyone should become filthy rich, but I am saying that people should have higher expectations of themselves than willingly collecting government checks every month.
I am one of the fortunit who was able to earn a living.
However, I know this is not always possible.
If given the choice, I'd prefer to work and earn some money, then not work, because I am afraid of my benefits being cut.
If I could work, and as I say maximize both benefits, and work earnings, I'd work.
This not only gives me something to do, but some self respect.
Next, my working gives me work experience, and that gives me the possibility of a better paying job.
If you work and receive benefits, did you know you can purchase a home?
You can build your credit rating, and many other things just because you have a job even if it pays low wages.
We are disable. We did not choose this, but we can plan and choose our living to the best we can.
You might not get rich, but you can help yourself to a degree.
If maximizing benefits along with a paycheckmakes this happenit is better.
What if you try hard, but never find that good paying job no matter how many degrees you have?
You have everything, but you can't ditch your disability, so what do you do now?
Answer me this Chelsea?
Last, do you really think that 75 to 80% of blind persons choose to only live on Gov. benefits so remain unemployed?
If these great jobs are available, and all you have to do it seek one, do you think the Gov. would provide benefits?
What in your estimation makes a good paying job?
Unfortunately, not everyone with a disability has the capacity to work. And Unfortunately, not all jobs include health insurance. If someone gets a job that does not provide enough money to cover health care insurance, co-pays, or premiums, then how exactly does having a job cause less stress for someone? If someone has a job that does not allow them to afford the medications they need to live a healthy life, then how exactly does this give someone more freedom within their life? If it is difficult for sighted people to obtain full-time employment with health care benefits, then it is even more difficult for those of us who are blind or have some other disability. And honestly, there are some well-paying jobs out there that automatically come with health care benefits that I would not be willing to do because of how the job would have a negative impact on my health. Unfortunately, the world is not always ideal.
I just find it sad that we even have to have this conversation, or make this kind of decision. I've found myself in a similar situation recently. Finding employment is not easy, at all, and I'm sure no one here thinks it is. You can't just say oh I need a good paying job and bam there it is. It takes dedication, perseverance, and credentials, and then even after all that, the fact that one of your major senses is not working severely inhibits you to complete most jobs that you are qualified to do. That's from 6+ months of job seeking, firsthand experience. Question though, what would proponents of "no gov payment, get a full time job" recommend to a college student who really has no credentials, or work experience, but is not satisfied with the meager gov payment. I'd love to hear that. Some of us have bills to pay, and families to provide for, some work is better than none any day.
Also I heard that as long as your monthly income does not exceed $1500 you can keep medicate, I went to my local office and asked around. And if it does, you can pay a premium to keep it. This is what I've been told, anyone have any experience to the contrary?
If you have other health issues, then don't be upset... I'm talking all of the lazy fucks.
As for college students with shitty degrees, one word: internships.
I think Medicaid varies somewhat from state to state.
So, we think all internships will turn in to good jobs?
Lets leave other health issues off and talk only blindnessfor this post.
I'm a college student, and I apply for an internship in say a company that does whatever.
I understand the job, I understand the business.
We get down to my starting, and learn the technology I'd need to even read my assignments, or do them not only is cost profibitive, but doesn't cover the job totally.
In order to do that job, I'd also need a hired reader, or support staffer.
This is just an internship, right?
What company will put all that in to me getting a little experience?
Can you tell me what internships a blind person might do that don't require lots of adaptive tech?
Now, do read me wrong, I'm all for a job, but I also am a realist and understand blind people simply don't have the same advantage,, not even a quarter of it seeing persons do.
I meant don't read me wrong.
Speaking as someone who went from living off SSI with only small summer jobs and things to speak of, its mor about your drive and who you know. You have to be able to show people you want to work and you have to network. Now a days, college just doesn't do it anymore on its own. A lot of people find good jobs because of who they know. that's how I found mine.
I am not trying to sound like I am better than everyone, but I am way too driven and want too much for myself to settle for living off of government assistance. I wasn't in any situation that kept me from working, I was totally capable. All of my friends who had jobs were able to save for the things they wanted so fast, they were able to go out all the time and do what they wanted, I couldn't do that, so I networked, and did anything I had to do to get here. If you have other things going on in your life that keep you fromj working fine. But if you are just lazy you make blind people look bad and you need to get off your ass.
You talk about networking as if it's easy, when it's really one of the hardest things on earth. At school I barely noticed people, much less talked to them. More accurately I noticed students collectively as this moving chattering indistinct mass of voices. That doesn't make me lazy.
it also depends on where you live
The poster, and I'm happy you were able, lives in a place where they have a job for the blind.
He works at a job specificly created for this purpose.
I'm not bbad mouthing this, but I do think he needs to be a bit more respectful of his luck over his networking.
If he'd lived in say, Washington State, his story might be much different.
Having a job doesn't make people able to afford things, budgeting and other things do this.
Sure, you need enough money to make it work. Some folks earn tons, and still suffer from lack of money.
Laziness just isn't always the story. You've got lots of factors, and I strongly think that needs respecting when others point at blind persons that aren't working with that finger.
Okay, so a few things:
I think it's important to consider why the lazy fucks are the way they are--not to excuse it, but to understand it. They're probably the types who had everything done for them growing up and, therefore, have no desire to, skills for, or concept of being self-sufficient. I grew up in that kind of environment, and while it didn't affect my drive for employment, it did fuck me up in other areas, and it took awhile for me to get my shit together. So, I understand it, but I also acknowledge that at a certain point, it ceases to be an explanation and becomes an excuse.
I also think, however, that there's another very valid reason that people with disabilities don't look for employment. And that is, they assume they'll be discriminated against. I admit that I've felt this way myself. I've been fortunate in that every job I've had so far has either served or been run by people with disabilities. And I lucked into two of those jobs. They were offered to me when I wasn't even looking. But I've also done the job hunt thing, and it was an epic, soul-crushing failure. The one face-to-face I got told me that my blindness was a liability (which was ironic, considering that this was actually an organization that served people with disabilities). It sucked. And it doesn't help that I'm still working on my degree.
Speaking of which... $Money, here are my suggestions: Try and make it easy. Apply for work study scholarships. Look for other positions on campus. Look for internships, as Lakeria suggested. See if you can find paid ones, but even if you can't, they'll help you later. So will volunteer work and involvement with campus organizations. If none of the easy employment options will work, then I'm afraid you'll have to do the job hunt thing. I may be doing that again myself soon, depending on what happens. And you can choose to follow my next bit of advice or not, you can think whatever you want about it... but I intend to take every single employer that turns me down because of any of my disabilities to court. Every, single, one. If I have to sue an entire fucking city, someone is going to give me a job, and no one will ever forget.
And that, boys and girls, is my two cents' worth.
Becky
I'll go on record to say I really respect the blind person that tries dispite the difficult. I was one of them.
But I also stand by we lucky, or hard seekers must give some slack. We need to assess each situation not point a group finger.
We can truly work, and receive benefits too.
We can use both to make our lives easier.
Even doing the research, and wrangling to make sure you are getting what the law says you should get is a job.
So, if you work, or want to work, study what is available and allowed you so you don't suffer due to needing your benefits to make ends meet.
Liquid tension experiment, you're a high partial, correct? If I'm right you especially have no business telling blind people what they should and shouldn't do. And whether or not something makes blind people look bad has zero influence on my decisions. I'm self-contained that way.
I'm surprised no one has specifically talked about the Lighthouse.
Where I live, it seems like most employed blind people work in sweat shops specifically for the blind performing menial tasks that could be done much faster with modern equipment. So let's say you had two choices:
1) collect SSI and do whatever you want within those means.
2) Collect a few hundred more $/month at the Lighthouse, where you spend your days in noisy dusty conditions around people barely smarter than turnips. Your job is essentially busy work and it causes you repetitive motion injuries and makes you miserable.
Which would you pick? For me, #1 is the obvious choice.
Personally I'd choose both. I could work and also collect my full benefits.
Sure the job would be much, but as you pointed out, it give me a few more dollars in my pocket.
Next, it gives me a job, and that can help me boost my credit rating, and have some job experience.
That experience, even unrelated to the next better job, is still showing I am able to make it on time to work, and have some stick to it.
That few extra bucks could mean I could own myself a place instead of renting.
If I'm smart, I buy something I can fix a bit and resale at a profit. Now I've made some money that isn't related to either my benefits nor my job that is money I can keep.
I reinvest that profit, and own myself an even nicer place.
Maxamize what you have is the key.
Even a good job requires you do something with that money so you can have a better life unrelated to a paycheck.
It is hard and knowing the right people helps, but what if you don't know the right people? How do you get to know them and foster a relationship that will be beneficial to you?
I was high partial, I guess, when I was in college and the intern director told me that the only place who would take me as an intern was a place that used interns as babysitters/hall moniters. I was outraged and didn't do an internship. (Stupid, I know-I should've ignored him and tried every where I could but I was naive and sensitive.)
I don't understand the whole not wanting to work across the board and this isn't just for the visually impaired. Two of my sisters (fully sighted) retired very early and one volunteers one day a week, the other doesn't. I have a friend who is a stay at home mom even though the kids are old enough that there is no need. I couldn't stand being dependent on my husband for money. Ugh!
Some pretty harsh words being tossed around. It just baffles me that because someone chooses not to work we instantly jump to calling them lazy, not that they have a preference or anything like that. Sometimes it is personal choice, and sometimes it is truly being afraid that working will get you one step forward and two steps back. It's what held me back from looking for a job for the longest time. At the age that I am now (22) most of my piers can get a actual paying job anywhere they want, a stepping stone toward a 9-to-5 if you will. In order for me to do the same, I might potentially lose my medical insurance and that just isn't worth it. Especially with several pre-existing conditions and the fact that I'm living on my own now. nope.
@Click_Clash
I've thankfully already found employment that pays decently, doesn't interfere with my insurance, and that I can do without any real modifications. Let me tell you it was no easy task, and at the beginning there were a few bumps that almost prevented me from doing the job, but thankfully they worked themselves out. I also do admire your "fire" for lack of a better word as far as discrimination is concerned. The first company that I got a job with, Live Ops system was inaccessible and after I messaged several managers and informed them of this they pretty much just stopped responding to my emails (fuck them). In theory the jobless blind person would have loved his day in court, then I realized I'm broke as fuck so I let that one go.
In conclusion:
Finding a job is not easy, and just because you find one doesn't mean you will be able to complete all tasks associated with it, and it doesn't mean you should lose everything that you've based your life on for so long. The government gives you this monthly check, and health insurance and you use it for years, and then when you find a job it's like they pull the rug from underneath you, no more check, nor insurance, good luck. Rather than deal with the stress of that kind of major change, people just choose to stay where they are. Sure life will get no better, but it also won't get any worse. Instead of calling people lazy fucks we should realize that every situation is different and show a little compassion, your job does not make you any better, or any more important, in some cases (like mine) it just makes you fortunate. . . Act like it.
lol Once again, if you have other conditions that will make it harder for you to work, then my comments and others were not directed at you. I have a friend who can see who can't even go to college because she's on thousands of dollars of meds and she's in and out of the hospital, but if you're just blind, and you even haven't looked for a job ever or if you just like your SSI, what's your excuse? Other than, I just don't want to work?
And, a few extra hundereds of dollars can't buy you a vacation to Paris, buy a home, and all of the things that sighted people my age will get to enjoy.
Finally, networking does matter. Just yesterday, I asked my mom if there were possibly an office job that I could do part time for future work, and she said no because it was visual, but still, I asked...and used that resource that was sitting right there. I didn't have to go to some random office to connect with anyone. Also, totally blind people can work. I know a single mother of 2 who's totally blind, that volunteered her way to all of her jobs, so...
Oh, and to address Wayne's point about needing extra assistance on the job because of visual tasks, I'm not going to deny that I might need some help with certain things, but if you get proper training on how to use all screenreaders efficiently, then the risk of that happening is minimized. I also say this because the field I plan to go into is strictly computer work, so... I'm already doing things to better my chances at being as independent on the job or internship as possible.
$Money, I can see where you're coming from. The problem, though, is that if the majority of blind people are willing to just accept the crumbs they throw us all forever, then nothing will ever improve for us. I'm sure as fuck not willing to accept that. I want more for myself. I want more for my peers. And I wish my peers wanted more for themselves. And harsh or not, since I'm fairly certain that the number of blind people who are willing to just roll over outnumber those of us who are not, it follows logically that the former are, indeed, holding us back as a people. And they need to stop. They need to make sure the ADA is enforced, with regard to both securing and maintaining employment. They need to advocate for a health care system that would not leave them high and dry without the support of Medicare/Medicaid/whatever they get through their check. And they need to do it now.
Also, and I'm surprised this hasn't been addressed directly as well, anyone who thinks that SSDI/SSI is enough to live on is kidding themselves. I have never, ever, ever succeeded in living a full, productive, and healthy life on that measley-ass check.
Becky
Sure, a few hundred will take you to Paris, and get you a home.
I can contest to that exact thing.
Example. $400 extra per month saved gives you $4800 at the end of the year.
That can be your down payment, or that vacation, or if you invest it youcould earn in the next year $2000 on your investment of $4800.
Now you've got close to 10 grand.
Now, if you invest that 10K in just a money market, you could possibly earn another third.
Maybe you put it all down on a condo. You can pay your condo off in say 7 years if you continue to salt that extra money in to it.
Now you own something. That reduces your monthly cost, or if things are good, can create income.
So, even a penny job can help you depending on how you use it.
It will also make your benefits higher in later life.
This is what I mean by researching. Sometimes we do things now, so we can relax later.
Exactly Becky, and while we're only getting one check worth $733, our sighted peers get 2 checks every month worth that much. Also, our little government insurance? One, it's not promised, and 2. there is not a planned parenthood in my area, and being a cancer survivor, I need to go see certain doctors about gynecological issues. Well, thanks to our government insurance that so many of you are afraid of losing, I can't go see these people unless I pay out of pocket or I have to get in during a certain time period. That, and I have to wait 7 months just to get an exam done, so...
Nothing absolutely is promised.
Just because you are working today means nothing about tomorrow.
Companies close up all the time.
I sincerely believe researching will help the fear of losing benefits.
If you aren't getting the information from one source, try all of them.
The systems not perfect, but it isn't designed to leave you a beggar either.
You must live in crappy areas or want small houses if you think $5000 is any kind of decent down payment and $70000 will pay off a nice condo. YOu may have been correct 5 years ago but not now.
okay I want to address a few things. me having sight doesn't change a damn thing in the job market. if I tell someone I am blind, not many people understand that blind people have different levels of vision. I can't tell you how many people in my office I have had to explain that to. Next social security SSI was never ment to be a life long thing for blind people who don't have things limiting them from performing in the work place. Unless major changes are made, the money funneled into SSI is going to run out. We have mor money being taken out than is added in. As far as networking, I don't like approaching people I don't know, it stresses me out. I don't like crouds, I keep to myself a lot. But people always told me networking over all else is what will land you work. like I said before college is not enough on its own, its who you know. so sometimes you have to step outside your confirt zone and just do it, and if you want it bad enough you will. My schooling didn't get me this job, filling out hundreds of applications didn't get me this job even though I hoped it would, I knew the right people at the right time, and that is how the market works now. When I was living on SSI, I lived month to month. 733 does not pay rent, and bills, and food, and transportation, and anything else you may need for the rest of your life, it just doesn't happen. Most blind people I know who depend on it have room mates, live in public housing, or live with family or friends. My rent on its own, in one of the cheapest parts of town is 720 a month. electricity plus internet plus food plus transportation excluding work plus my phone bill is a lot mor than 733. and btw it pisses me off when people tell me I have an advantage because I have some sight. I still use a cane/guide dog, I still use a screen reader, and I still have to ask for help every day when I get a pdf I can't read, or a websight doesn't work with jaws, I have the same obsticles as everyone else. the main point I was trying to make was, if you want to work, and your trying, good job, your making the community look better. if you can't work, I have no issue, do what you do, that is what assistance is there for. But if you are choosing not to work because you don't think you need to and you want to live off of the tax dollars paid by everyone else, get the hell out of my face. That sounds harsh, and it is, and I don't give a damn. Your using a system for life that was not designed for you to be on for life.
It sounds to me like there are a lot of harsh words being thrown around on this board topic. I say that you never really know what the circumstances of a person’s life might be like. So instead of judging everyone and calling each other harsh names, perhaps we could show some compassion towards each other.
Unfortunately, benefits like social security or unemployment can sometimes provide disincentives for people to become employed. I know of sighted people who were not all that eager to find a new job when the great recession hit because their unemployment check was just as much or sometimes more than what they would be making at a minimum wage job. So it is not just blind people or disabled people who do this sort of thing.
But again, if you do not know the circumstances of someone’s life, then I do not believe anyone has any right to judge them. If what they are doing works for them, then who am I to judge the way a person lives their life? If some millionaire just sits on his ass all day long without doing much to be a part of society, or even making any kind of contribution to society, then is he labeled as being lazy too? There really does not seem to be any difference to me.
That is a very good point @ crazy_cat. I don't see anyone calling trust fund babies who live their lives off the interest of trust fund accounts, when that while not the same exact thing, is pretty damn close.
@Click_Clash
I wouldn't call $733 crumbs first off, sure in some, or most areas it is not sufficient on its own to live supremely well, but crumbs seems to be bridging on the point of a hyperbole. I myself do not think that is enough, and I am not willing to just take it and be glad, but again there are other considerations that go into that kind of decision, and just saying, "sacrifice your medical insurance you lazy fuck go work for $900 dollars and hope you don't get the flue or brake your arm" seems a little ridiculous. Lets of jobs full time or not don't even offer a medical package, college degree, applications, networking whatever the fuck. I'm not sure if you've personally had any dealings with the legal system, but I have, it is not something that is easily affordable, since we are still talking about these same people living on that same check. Ideally, would I have liked to file a complaint, sure? would it have been feasible? probably not. Companies are only required to make reasonable accommodations and adaptations, and a piece of software that was integral to the daily operations that would have required time (money) to even see if it was possible to adapt, which in most cases it is not could be argued, in a court of law, as unreasonable. There goes my time, money and for what, principle? Principle can go jump in a lake. I'm an adult, so I live by practicalities, it was more practical and financially responsible for me to simply try and seek employment elsewhere, which I did.
In addition to that already above, I don't understand why blind people who choose to take, and live off of a benefit afforded them, by the federal government, due to the difficulty that one of three major since not properly functioning makes them lazy, is be smudging the entire blind community (speak for yourself) and is basically roll over and take it prison style behavior. The fact is that is ridiculous. It is there to benefit those who want it and who need it. I also don't see anybody batting a fucking eyelash when corporations lye in the lap of luxury greedily excepting over 100 billion dollars in corporate welfare, so yeah, I'm just not going to say do as I do or fuck you to the blind community.
my point is, tax payers are the only reason SSi is a thing, and even that isn't enough. I have no problem with tax dollars going to people who need it, but if you don't? and you just don't want to work, and you don't want to put back into something that has kept you alive, then yes, you are lazy.
As Liquid tension experiment (sorry, I don't know your name) says, anyone who *does not* want to work, blind, sighted, whatever, is lazy. The reason that fact matters in this discussion, is because when the majority of blind people are content to live off government funding (which is not guaranteed every month, by the way) their contentment with that way of living is a reflection on those of us who are blind and *do* want to better our lives.
I know about having serious health issues, and I'll tell you what: for me those issues are every bit what drive me not to continue living off government funding any longer. My health issues are serious enough that they've made me think about my whole life differently than I ever have. Part of this different way of thinking I have, is that my health issues are so serious that I need to do something to better my situation because I need far better healthcare than I currently have. Yes there was a time when I thought very differently and stayed on government funding, but I was extremely sick for at least five years and couldn't have worked even if I'd wanted to. So once I got better, part of my getting better was having the realization that I wanted more for myself than what I was getting--having an active social life is crucial to my overall good health, but you can't do that yourself when you're living check to check, and your entire check is even less than the bills you have to pay. So anyway, this subject is very close to my heart, and I want other blind people to want big things for themselves. I want other blind people to think outside the box, and not let their fear dictate whether they stay on government funding or not. I want other blind people to experience a comfortable, fulfilling life, because that's far more beautiful than living check to check all their lives. But hey, if most blind people don't wanna experience those things, that's their prerogative. I'll feel sad for them, but I'm sure they don't give a damn about that either.
So all in all, what this boils down to, is that some people have a determination and a drive to succeed in life, and others like being content with the way things are. Each view is a different way of thinking, but I am glad that I'm no longer at a place of being content. My life is more freeing and satisfying that way.
At this point in the present conversation, it’s almost become a cliché to say that every situation is different, but the fact of the matter remains that it’s true. Me, I think I fell into a very, very lucky situation. I’m admittedly on SSDI, and have been so for a few years now, but I also work full-time because I qualify as a disabled worker. Granted there’s reporting you have to do every month, but I’m on the govt. insurance while also paying for my own insurance that my work offers. Because of these two checks, or income streams, or whatever you wanna call them, I was able to make full amends to my ex this year, and I’m going to be totally out of debt by the end of 2018, and certainly no later than 2019, if I manage things correctly, and my debt load is still pretty significant. But I pay into Social Security, plus I have my own retirement for which I’m paying now. What I get is going back into society, and I can safely say that I’m far from lazy. I do overtime when it’s required, and I’ve worked hard to get where I am right now. I was also out of work for almost six years, and had to start at a minimum wage job again to get myself into the position I have now. Not trying to brag, but I am saying that it’s entirely possible to maximize your benefits and work at the same time, and as I define it, right now I’m successful. More money is coming in than going out, I can leave my job at work at the end of the day, and my stress level is at an all-time low. And yes, I also knew someone who knew someone, and that’s how I was able to get where I am now. So, as I see it, working while maximizing your benefits so that you can re-contribute and give back to society is the ideal, as far as I’m concerned. You’re not being lazy because you’re working for what you get. At the same time, though, I would far from encourage anyone from doing some of the things I had to do in order to get where I am now. It wasn’t pretty sometimes, and I don’t expect that I’ll be able to really retire until I’m in my early seventies. But that’s life, and as long as my health holds out, I’m cool wwith that.
Wow, you Americans have it harsh. I think, based on what I've heard that there are a lot more resources in the US than here in Canada for the blind/visually impaired. But SSI just sounds harsh. It was difficult here too for a while. These days I make about $1400 a month, which for the cost of living here is barely enough to live off. But we are - currently at least - allowed to have up to $100000 in liquid assets before we get kicked off. Furthermore I am allowed to make up to $11000 a year before my disability is cut off, and regardless of whether I work, I am allowed to stay on the medical system. I can't tell you how grateful I am that PWD (our SSI) is here, because it's kept me off the street while I was unemployed for four years. thankfully that time is over, but as someone said in one of these posts, you never know what will happen. A person could lose their job any time. Then, SSI/PWD is a really helpful lifeline to ensure you're not left destitute. As for it coming at the tax payer's expense? Yes, that's true enough. But tons of things come at the tax payer's expense. I figure, even if someone isn't working for whatever reason, if they're actively providing something meaningful to society - however that may be - that's something.
Were I live, you can buy a decent condo for around 80 to 90 grand.
Provided you've got a decent credit score, and that piss ant job, you can use a program that will allow you to put down 1 to 5%.
The program pays closing cost aned many other things for you, and you receive a sweet intrest rate.
That keeps your payments under the going rent rate, so you now are in the sweet spot if you don't get sidetracked.
You use another program that reduces your 30 or 15 year to 7 to 10.
Maxamizing is how it is done.
No, everyone won't have this information, but it is available.
Yes, in some places the blind in America can live well on the SSI or SSDI due to other benefits available.
This again requires research.
As to Chelsea, you are saying good things, and I respect them, but you're forgetting your medical issues might just keep you from insurance.
That means that job you want.
No, they won't say this, but you'll not get the job either.
Once they see you are going to be a costly person to insure, you'll just not get that call back.
Sad, but reality.
Liquid Tension Experiment your use of a dog is a capability I lack. I guess that's not relevant to how much useful vision you have, but if you're able to recognize other people by sight you're light years beyond anything I can do socially. I think that our use of screen readers is about where our similarities in disability end.
Networking sounds to me like a buzz word which translates as "lucky coincidence." So you're saying there's no formula that I can follow for success. I just have to hope I'm in the right point in space-time to overhear the right conversation and give the right response. We're just particles bumping randomly against one another. If I'm blind and I fail to experience the correct lucky coincidence, I don't get a job. If I don't get a job I can't work. If my only reasons for not working are blindness and lack of lucky coincidences, I'm lazy. You've admitted there's no success formula and then called blind people lazy for not following it. You also said that the lucky coincidence events are supposed to occur at school. That's funny. I'll cover that in another post.
its rare I can tell who someone is just by seeing them. and you can network outside of school if you want to. That is just where I did most of mine because that is where I spent most of my time.
Actually, school deserves its own topic.
I'll make the radical statement that yes, blindness all by itself is sometimes a sufficient reason why someone can't work. Sighted people reject us because we're blind. If we're rejected we don't get a job. It's hard to work without a job. So technically, blindness is the reason for the inability to work. The purpose of monthly disability payments is to assist those who can't work, so the government also doesn't expect us to work.
Let's face it. The numbers are bleak: 60-70% of us are unemployed. Most employed blind work at menial tasks that are basically given to them as charity with no chance of advancement. The difference between SSI and one of these jobs is essentially accepting charity in the comfort of your own home, or accepting it while you go to an unpleasant space every day where you pretend to be useful. Even the menial (but still useful) minimum-wage jobs that the sighted can get are mostly unavailable to us.
70% unemployed means it's obviously a rigged game with many losers. If you're a winner you shouldn't be a jerk to the majority who didn't win. It's not that most of us are lazy, it's that we're tired of facing rejection after rejection. There's a difference between effort and work. I can exert lots of energy pushing against a wall but I would have done no work. Most blind people are smart enough to recognize this, so they choose their own happiness over idealistic nonsense.
Whole lotta whinin' on this board. Yes, it is hard for blind people to find a job.
Yes, you are going to have to fill out dozens, if not hundreds of applications.
Yes, you are going to probably work a shit job that you don't particularly like.
Yes, you are going to have to cut back on a few things. But to quote NOFX, so
fucking what? You want to sit on SSI, hoping that they don't decrease your
check. HOping you can get enough this month to pay for something you want.
Knowing that you will never be able to own anything really nice because you
simply can't afford it. Knowing that one accident with your house, or property
that you own, or your person can bankrupt you, then good for you. yeah, you're
probably lazy and I for one look down on you, but that's your choice, you get to
lay in the bed you made. Dropped out of high school, had kids with three
different people, and now don't have time to get your GED let alone a job, good
job, you fucked your life up. You made bad decisions. God two or three
disabilities that prevent you from leaving your house, then its perfectly fine for
you to be on disability. That's what its really for, those who truly can't have a
job. But with the advent of new technology today, the list of those who truly
can't have a job is getting smaller and smaller. Don't have the skills, get them.
Go to a training center, go to college, go to a technical school. Don't like
working with people, get a job at a computer where you don't have to. Don't
know anyone who can help you get a job? Find some. The only thing holding
you back is your piss poor excuses. Stop making them, slog through the
necessary shit, and get the fuck over yourself.
So, why don't you have a job right now Silver?
I'm not poking.
You finished college.
What is your problem?
And explain those numbers I gave. You say that the list of people who can't hold a job is shrinking but as far as I know, the unemployment rate for us as stayed about the same. If the list is shrinking then the unemployment percentage should also shrink, unless people aren't hiring us. I imagine our laziness rates are about equal with those of the sighted, so that's not the answer.
Wayne, mostly financial. The field I'm going into requires grad school, which
I'm still working on getting into. But the key is that I'm still working on it. If
you're working on getting training, or school, or savings, then fine, you're doing
what you need to do. If you're not doing anything, its probably your own damn
fault.
as for the numbers, I've heard a lot of people claim those numbers, but I've
never actually see anyone cite them. I've seen them claimed, even claimed
them myself, but never seen them cited, including here. So I don't see a need
to even address them.
Well, the NFB and ACB whom do studies claim the bnumbers.
So does the Government.
I'd say they aren't claims.
As to grad school, that is good, but still won't promise you anything.
Right now, if you were a sighted person, you'd have some sort of job between the two.
Getting over yourself just isn't enough.
I applaud your doing something, but you've got to understand some of these people have done exactly what you're doing already, and still aren't working.
Just a couple of things here:
1. Hyperbole doesn't prove points. It just makes the user look jerkish. Talking about dropping out of high school and having kids with three different people, for instance, has no bearing whatsoever on someone's inability to work.
2. Voyager's made some really good points here. I don't agree with every one, but they're pretty solidly made.
3. If I was the sort of person who wanted to live off disability, I no more reflect badly on the blind community as a whole than does a sighted person who lives off disability for some other reason. This negative stigmatization has reached lunatic proportions.
Gregg, while I agree that Cody's stigmatization of high school dropouts and women who have children with more than one man was uncalled for, everything else he said is correct. As I said above, I understand the reasons blind people, and people with disabilities in general, don't look for work. However, as I also said above, they need to get over those reasons and do it anyway. Because, while voluntarily unemployed blind people may reflect no better or worse on their community than any other voluntarily unemployed person, we as people with disabilities face unique barriers when we *do* look for employment, and those barriers will never be broken if the majority of us don't help break them.
Becky
I understand why you think we should all work to eliminate those barriers but based on what I know about human behavior it will never happen. Most of us will choose to suffer as little as possible. Only a few of us are willing to sacrifice our own happiness for the future happiness of the whole group, especially if the results don't appear to be coming in our lifetimes.
my question is simple, why are you happy doing nothing? Are you really
happy doing nothing but collecting a check on the first, and not doing anything
to make yourself useful? If you don't get why you should be doing it for me and
beckky and others who want to be as, for lack of a better word, normal as
possible, why not do it for yourself? Why are you ok being what amounts to a
financial leach on society if you don't have to? You're being paid for by tax
payers, and you don't have to be, or at least you can do your best to get off of
it. Why are you happy doing that? I simply can't understand that. I couldn't look
myself in the mirror if I did that, if I wasn't at least trying. I got rejected for a
job just before christmas, and it was a job I really wanted. Guess what, I filled
out another application and got on with it.
The reason i included people who dropped out of high school and had children
with multiple men is because I know several blind people who did that, and are
now helpless, dependent on their parents, or their boyfriends if they're lucky, to
suppport them and their children. I even know of one who depends on their X
boyfriend to care for their children, because they don't know how to do it
themselves. So he cleans, he cooks, and she does nothing. So I consider them
somewhat linked in the blind community. And don't think I'm focusing only on
women. There are a lot of blind men who have kids they can't afford, and so
they abandon them, or stay on government assistance to get welfare. There are
things we can't really afford to do if we want independence. We don't get to
casually have kids, and we don't get to simply drop out of high school. we can't
really flip burgers, so we have to depend on our education. The number of
people who had unplanned children and made it work are, as far as I can
remember knowing of, two. The numbers of them who had unplanned children,
kept them, and now have no job, live entirely on government assistance, and
have no prospects, is a lot more than two.
I'm actually still looking but I understand the logic of those who quit. At a certain point it doesn't make much sense to expend lots of energy on an activity that has a low probability of success. When I'm not subjecting myself to the job search process I'm definitely less stressed (happier).
Again, it seems as though there are a lot of harsh words being thrown around on this board topic. I can understand why some people may want to label people who do not work as being lazy. However, I do not believe this general statement is either fair or accurate.
What do you really know about every single blind person who does not work? What do you know about their circumstances in life? Unless you know everything there is to know about every single blind person who does not work, or the circumstances of their lives, then who are you to judge these people?
Perhaps someone is not working because they have chosen to volunteer their time somewhere that is not able to provide them with a pay check. Perhaps someone is not working because they cannot afford to pay for adequate childcare while they are working. Perhaps someone is not working because of limited transportation options. And perhaps someone is not working because they have yet to realize their full potential as a blind person.
I could go on and on with the reasons why anyone, including someone who is blind, may not be choosing to work. I understand each individual has the capacity to make their own choices in life. However, we also live in a greater society where our lives are influenced by factors beyond who we are as individuals. So if you are going to blame the individual for being lazy, then it seems to me that you should also blame the greater society for creating an environment that contributes and fosters this laziness.
However, I am rather perplexed by the posts of SilverLightning. It seems to me that post 50 contradicts this whole notion of laziness. I honestly have no idea what you are doing with your time. However, if you are allowed to choose not to work as a means to save up for something in the future, then why are others not allowed to do the same? As forereel has pointed out, most sighted people have some sort of job when taking time off between undergraduate and graduate school. In addition, most sighted people also have a job while attending college. Therefore, it seems to me that others who work while attending college, or taking a break between undergraduate and graduate studies, may consider you to be lazy because you are not working while taking time off between your undergraduate and graduate studies.
The term lazy is rather subjective and is generally based on our own notions of what we consider lazy to be. But since the term lazy is rather subjective, and means different things to different people, it is quite possible that someone else considers the way you choose to live your life to be lazy. Just some things to think about.
I have said it is better to do something over nothing if you have opertunity, and things are in favor.
But, I do understand why some people don't.
I don't think a person should just toss in the towel, but after a point, you have no choice.
I think raising a child is a job, so don't see women, or men for that matter who stay home to do this as lazy.
You are just doing the job you'd have to pay someone else to do for you.
If working doesn't make this affordable, do it yourself.
Couple more things here:
1. Technically if you buy something and you pay tax on it, then you're contributing in a small way to society. Most people have needs, most people buy things they want, and as such, most people pay taxes to one extent or another.
2. The human brain is wired in such a way that doing the same thing over and over, and failing at it, will make doing that thing harder. It's possible to overcome it of course, but it's not easy to do, nor is it the way we're built. Prioritization is a big deal here. Some people will see survival as priority #1, while others will see self-improvement/the value of one's worth as expressed via giving back to society as a higher priority. I'm largely in agreement with CrazyCat here.
Speaking for myself, I don't want to be sucking government cheques the rest of my life. But I recognize that sometimes things are just too hard for a person to get around, or that certain circumstances are simply not going to change. To put it baldly, if you're looking out for just you, then I don't really care what you do as long as you get the job done. Yes, when you bring others into the equation, then things have to change, but unless or until they do, your right to sit on assistance is your own, and essentially inviolate. Never mind all the bullshit about how you're not representing blind people well; that's not going to get you to think about changing your lot.
Do you. Change because you want to change for yourself, not because you were browbeaten into it or for some idea of the so-called greater good.
Yeah, you have the right to do as you feel is best for you. and I have the right
to think you're being lazy.
@Shepherdwolf makes some really solid points IMO. Mainly that this notion of greater good for the blind community is quite frankly bullshit. How many blind people with a job were honestly thinking, "man I've really got to get a job so that people view blind people as a whole differently."
I know i certainly wasn't. It was more about wanting to be more independent, it was wanting financial freedom, it was a since of purpose for me, and in that notion I can agree with points made by both @SilverLightning and @Click_Clash. I also understand that everyone is not going to be like me. Everyone isn't going to have the drive to work, everyone isn't going to be able to handle rejection after rejection, everyone just can't be exactly like me. I personally am okay with that, I am not so bogged down by the decisions of others, (that really have nothing to do with me), that I can't enjoy my life, without simultaneously bashing another group of people who are, oh no, Different than I am.
The problem with your theory is that you mistakenly believe that it has to be
your intention for it to be true. No, I don't imagine many blind people have
gotten a job so that other blind people will gain some standing in general
society. However, the more blind who have jobs, the less that reputation will be
deserved, and the les it will be suffered by us. So while your assertion was
entirely correct, your conclusion was wrong. Its not your intention, but it the
end result nonetheless.
The truth of the matter is that we are negatively stigmatized without deserving it, even those of us who have demonstrated quite clearly that we don't deserve it. This fanciful notion that enough of us getting jobs will make the idiots shut up is nonsense. They never will, and we can't make them. We have to do whatever it is we need to do not because of the idiots, not in spite of them, but purely because it needs doing.
In other words: stop worrying what other people think unless or until it gets in the way of what you need to do.
Do you, whatever that entails.
Don't use those silly people who say silly things as a valid reason why you, or anyone else, needs to improve their lot in life. That's adding pressure that struggling people do not need, will not appreciate and will ultimately reject regardless of the potential support behind it.
I find it quite alarming, that one prefer to receive social security than actually having some sort of sustainable career beyond the zone. Are we too confortable with what we got till the point that we do not need to look out for it, or we are just naturally lazy, incapable, and choose to be the reciepian of society, which is what the stereotype of blind people often occur.
It is also quite disturbing when on one hand, we want to create the bridge between the inequality of people with disability and society, but at the same time, we also choose not to give up the priveledges we have as a person with disability, include things like SSI payment etc.
So, what are we sending the message to the main stream society? We want equality with priveledges....
Gregg, the fact of the matter is that we are not the first minority group, in
america at least, to go through this and have this exact problem. Black people
just after the civil war were thought too stupid because of genetics to do
anything more than plow a field or fry a chicken. So a few black leaders got
together, formed the national assocaition for the advancement of colored
people, and started educating black people, getting them jobs that paid well.
Eventually enough black people were educated and had access to good jobs that
the sharecropping system, which had been a second slavery worse than the
first, was ended out of lack of bodies. They got over their stigma in society.
They went from being thought of as low down, predisposed to laziness, dull, dim
and stupid, to being able to get education, jobs, housing, loans, all of that stuff.
Now, they still face a lot of stigma, but they are at least able to fight to
overcome them because they hae a history of doing so. If a black person got
denied a job because of their race, there's a law against that. It still happens,
but its a risk because people will be outraged. If the same thing happens to a
blind person, it wouldn't even make the back page of the newspaper. The only
way we're ever going to have a chance of overcoming that is to get enough
people to have educations, jobs, an active role in society. If we get the face of
blindness to be lawyers, politicians, business owners, good upstanding citizens,
we could make it a lot easier for other blind people to get a job and an
education. wE could get it to where they're expected to receive a job and an
education. Where a parent of a blind person tells them growing up, you best get
yourself some schooling, instead of telling them that they'll be taken care of all
their life.
The only thing standing in our way, besides time, is he fact that we have so
many among us who are perfectly willing living up to the blind stereotype.
They're perfectly willing not knowing how to get around, how to use technology,
not knowing how to cook, dress themselves well, care for themselves, let alone
have any job skills. There are people on this very board who have admitted they
don't look at someone when they're talking to them. You think that's gonna get
you a job if you're at an interview? You think you're gonna always remember to
do it if it isn't a habit for you? You think you're gonna know how to tie a tie or
put on a suit properly so it flatters you if you only wear polo shirts every day?
You think anyone is gonna want to hire you if you can't even make yourself
presentable? Of course not. Because they see only the stereotype. Don't let it,
make them see something else. You want people to see you as a well put
together guy or woman, be a wel put together guy or woman. You want people
to think you're independent, be independent.
We can't sit back and expect the world to change for us. You hate the fact
that its hard to get a job? That it takes years after even getting a degree to get
a good job? So do I. So what are you gonna do about it? Cuz whining ain't
gonna do shit.
Cody, I agree that whining isn't going to help, and I agree that many people in the community, self included up to a point, haven't done all they probably could have in order to better their lot.
But your comparison to black people is hugely flawed, for one reason. It's not the same thing.
The main reason why black people ultimately came to be treated as equals by like 99.4% of people is not primarily because they fought. Oh sure, that helped a ton, and I'm not advocating we never ever fight. It was because once they fought back, people were forced to accept, all the way down, that hey, these are just people with a different skin colour and they're just as capable as everyone else. With blindness, though, you are always, always going to have at least a few people who aren't up to snuff. Maybe it's because they have other disabilities. Maybe it's because they were not taught well. Maybe it's because they can't be bothered. There will always be someone around who, for one reason or another, validates part of the stereotype. And more importantly than that - since I am sure that someone might try to argue that some black person somewhere validates a stereotype too - we must remember that blindness is not analogous to skin colour. We really and truly are lacking. That doesn't mean we can't fight back. It doesn't mean we can't do a whole hell of a lot for ourselves. It doesn't mean we're helpless. But it does mean that we have a marked deficiency in something that is fairly obvious. This deficiency happens to come in an area where the rest of the world is very aware of its own strength. As such, the stereotypes and assumptions aren't going anywhere, not overall.
I'm going to clarify one thing before I finish up here.
I am not, absolutely not, advocating that people stop trying entirely. When you're refused service because you're blind, told to leave a bar because you've got a dog, shot down at a job interview for no other reason than that assumptions have been made about your skills by your would-be employer, that's bad. That needs to stop. You have every right in the world to stand up and say something if you're stepped on that way. I applaud the hell out of that. What you shouldn't do, though, is take the extra step and suggest that people who don't do that, or people who've given up for one reason or another, are holding the rest of us back. We, as a group, will be able to work on the way we're viewed, but I promise you, we are never, ever going to be seen as equal all the time by everyone. It's not going to happen. That's what I meant when I said "do you". Advocate for yourself, push forward however it best serves you. Fight injustice if you see it happen to you or someone else. That's fighting the good fight, as it were. But don't kid yourself into thinking that if enough of us fight for enough time, things will be wine and roses for ever and ever. They won't be. As such, don't use that argument as a bludgeon for the people you look down on because they aren't doing what you're doing. At worst, just shake your head and walk away. They're going to do whatever it is they're doing regardless of your condemnation.
No, black people wasn't a sound comparing.
This is a world made for the visual. Until we can compete on that level, we'll never be equals or seen as such.
This will never happen.
And you don't think this country was built for white people? A perceived lack
is the same as a real one. We lack sight, black people lacked acceptance in
white culture. Now, if this were fifty or a hundred years ago, I'd agree with you.
Then it was almost impossible to imagine how a blind person could do most
things on the same level except basic manual jobs. That's why they had us
either as artists or craftsman if we were lucky. Now, we don't have that excuse
anymore. we've got technology that can make us practically equal. No, we
might not be able to do brain surgery, but we can easily do office work. We just
have to force our way into that field. We aren't going to be able to do that by
ones and two, we have to do it en mass.
I think it is rather sad when people cannot sympathize with the challenges other people face in their lives. I also do not understand how someone can say that a blind person is lazy for not having or wanting a job without labeling other people as being lazy for not having or wanting a job as well.
How do the claims about how blind people are lazy for dropping out of high school to have children with partners in which they are not married have anything to do with blindness? Are people who drop out of high school to have children with partners in which they are not married who are not blind somehow not lazy? What exactly is the difference?
And I do not understand how African Americans somehow overcoming their challenges within our society has anything to do with this topic. Since when have African Americans as a whole have been able to overcome the discrimination they face within our society? When people think about poverty in the United States, in most cases what comes to mind are the poor black inner city ghettos laced with drugs, violence, and crime. And not too long ago I read a recent article claiming that young African American men are somehow just as lazy as what you are making most blind people out to be.
Yes, I agree that there are things an individual can do to change their circumstances in life. However, there are also other factors within society that can make it difficult for people to change their circumstances in life.
I agree with everything that Cody said. There are some mess ups in the ADA, and I'm not sure if it's been changed since 1990.
I can sympathize all day long. Its not like I don't face those same challenges
as a blind person. But sympathizing doesn't mean I think you should be allowed
to sue them as an excuse. Yes, you're blind, you have my sympathy, now get
over it and make something of yourself.
No, people who have kids in high school and drop out made bad decisions,
they aren't necessarily lazy. Blind people who have nothing else afflicting them
but who are fine sitting on SSI and not at least trying to better themselves are
lazy. That is how I feel. If you are perfectly happy living on SSI, you are lazy.
You should always be working toward getting off of it, and I have a lot more
respect for those blind people who try, even if they fail, than I do for those who
never try. My sympathy has nothing to do with it.
As for why I brought up african americans, its called a paralel. I used a group
who went from being the most downtrodden group in america, to one that is at
least able to fight for equal footing. They don't always get it, and we're not
always going to get it, but they have made a lot bigger strides than we have. I
don't see why that's so hard to comprehend.
Cody, you're still ignoring, missing or just not accepting the point that we actually have a shortfall. No, it's not anywhere near as big as it was a hundred years ago, but it's still there, and it's always going to be there to some extent or another.
I'm all in favour of making the perception of that shortfall as realistic as possible, and that means making said perception a lot more fair-handed than it is currently. I'm on board with that. We get the shaft a lot when we shouldn't. But at the end of the day, even if there is some magical future date where a hundred percent of the people in the world somehow see our shortfall for precisely what it is, no more and no less, we're still going to be at a bit of a disadvantage.
What's more, that magical day is not going to happen. It can get a lot better than what it is now, but it's never going to be perfect.
As such, don't use the hope of said impossible day as a tool to judge people. It's not realistic and just makes you (general you, here, since Cody is not the only one I've seen doing this) look intolerant or judgmental.
I can't state this strongly enough.
There are four groups of people in my opinion.
Group 1: These are the folks who are really on the ball, and largely do what they can for themselves or others; no one's perfect, but these folks are really trying very hard to move forward.
Group 2: These are the folks who know they don't have any really good excuses, but aren't putting themselves forward. They go in stops and starts. They fumble. They don't always ask the right questions, get stuck in ruts, that sort of thing. These people (I'm among them, and I bet many of you are too) could probably use encouragement here and there, but they usually know they're not in the best life position.
Group 3: These are people who aren't putting their best foot forward for a valid reason. Maybe they're in a very small town with virtually no transit system, don't have a lot of money, possess other disabilities and such which make working unrealistic for them. This group also consists of people who, for one reason or another, may be able to transition to another of these groups but honestly don't know it (they're truly ignorant of something which might help them, and might be willing to listen if this info was passed along).
Group 4: These are the people who don't put their best foot forward without providing a reason others might accept. I've been very careful to word this in a specific way. These are the people most of the haters seem to hate on, and the whiners seem to whine about. These are the folks who maybe had a really bad string of luck and then gave up, or the people who for one reason or another think that certain rules of conduct don't apply to them. These are people who probably have enough skills to get themselves a job, but don't do it for some reason. Many people from group 2 tumble into group 4, and many people perceived to be in group 4 are probably in group 3, or could be.
So when you hear about someone who's not working, or not trying to work, or whatever, here's a thought. Instead of picking at all the things they're doing wrong, instead of blaming the whole shortfall of the blind community on their particular subset within it, how about you take a step or two back and actually ask whether or not you're armed with enough knowledge to judge. Probably you aren't (again, general you here). And even if you are, ask yourself what good it does. If you think folks in a bad way are often motivated by being kicked when they're down, think again.
Here's the thing though Gregg. I'm not here to motivate you. They have
people who are here to motivate you, and they all get paid for it. Pay me, and
I'll motivate the hell out of you. I ain't getting paid by you or anyone else on
this site. You want help, ask for it. There's a secondary board to this one where
I did just that. I was asked for advice, and I gave advice. But I'm not here to
make sure you get all the help you need and that you feel good and are tucked
in all nice and cozy. we're adults here. You want to be motivate, motivate
yourself. There's no reason you can't.
For some people, that's true. For some, it's not. Take it from me; if you're the sort who can self-motivate, you may not know what it's like to be on the other side of the fence. This doesn't mean you have to motivate people if you don't feel like it. That's fine.
But do you have to go to the other extreme? Because the last line of my last message really rings true here. If you think kicking someone when they're down is helpful in any way, think again.
The word "lazy" has negative connotations. The idea that someone is looking down on you has negative connotations. And most people I know who aren't in a good position don't do well if approached that way.
Again, fine I suppose. In one board topic you're giving advice, and in the other you're actively working, whether you want to or not, to further stomp down the subset of people you have the audacity to sneer at. Just trying to establish that this is precisely what you're doing. I guess as long as you're okay with it, and as long as you're okay with me (and others who have noticed) calling it out, then go you.
Personally, I don't accept every reason as valid. I don't think everyone who's not working, or not doing their best, is in a great spot. I don't want to cuddle them all and tell them it's okay. Frankly, there are people I've met and spoken to that I want to shake, really really hard. But at the end of the day, it's their life, not mine. The only reason I'm going to even think about trying to give them a shake is if I'm closely involved with them, and their lack of progress is getting in the way. I would frankly expect the same treatment if I was the one not in a good way. And again, I've been there, and I've gotten the lecture, and I deserved every word.
But here's the thing. I don't want to shake them because I'm looking down on them, or because I think I know what's best for them. Usually, it's because I see so much potential that's not being used, or I see a really rotten string of luck which might turn with a little more effort. If I really do care about that person, then I want them to succeed above all else. Whatever I might think of their situation (laziness, procrastination, bad luck, ignorance) doesn't matter much; it's all about the next step, not the last one.
I don't want to get into wrangles about how they're bringing the blind community down. Who the fuck does that help? I don't want to talk about them in derogatory terms, calling them leeches and whatnot; again, who the fuck does that help? I don't get my jollies by stepping on people.
I have a problem with the 60 to 70% unemployment statistics among blind people. What percent of unemployed blind people either have multiple disabilities or went blind later in life at which point long term disability is a better option then completely retraining for new jobs based on there age? I'd like to see the unemployment rate among blind people with college degrees compared to sited people. I'd also like to have the unemployment broken down by major if possible, I know some blind people who pick majors that make it much more dificult to get a job when blind even if they can get the major.
Voyager if I'm correct your a computer science major. Have you considered contributing to open source as part of your job search to help build a resume? While Open Source was not nearly as big a deal when I started working I know employers will look at github profiles if you have one. On github people don't need to know your blind and having code to show you can program will be helpful when proving you can do a job blind.
something else to consider when choosing a college major is, not only the pay grade but the popular demand. For example, I chose social work and therefore, I can work just about everywhere but the paygrade isn't anything to write home about.
Why do people consider blind people aren't able to do anything? I mean I've work in house cleaning in a daycare, in an office answering phones, and there are plenty of jobs we are able to do, but people act like we're just gonna sit in the corner blowing bubbles and drooling. lol
To all the people who feel as if they're not worth anything but SSI:
https://nfb.org/wtbw-main
Here's the thing though Gregg, saying that you want to shake someone
because of the wasted potential you see, and wanting to shake someone
because they aren't living up to a standard is the exact same thing. You phrased
it in a cozy little way, but its the exact same thing. You see potential, you feel
that potential should be used, that is a standard. They are failing to meet that
standard by not living up to their potential. You want to shake them for that.
That's literally the same thing. There's no difference. You, and many others, put
in a bunch of wherefores and subtleties to keep you from having to face the fact
that you're doing the same thing I am, but you're still doing the same thing I
am. No, you aren't as harsh as I am, but at the end of the day, when you're not
on the board where someone can read it, you still think that someone isn't living
up to their potential. You wish they'd do something to better themselves. same
as I do. I just don't care enough about protecting their feelings not to say it to
them. I think they are wasting their lives and wasting tax payer money. SSI is a
safety net, its always meant to be a safety net. safety nets are to keep you from
falling, they're not hammocks. Too many people use them as hammocks. You're
supposed to use them to catch yourself, and claw your way back up. Yeah, its
hard, yeah, you're probably gonna slip sometimes, but that's what its there for.
its not there for you to curl up in the net with a good book and take a nap. Its
meant to get you back up to the bar so you can try again. And as a person who
was once on that bar and has fallen off, I can tell you life on the bar is a metric
fuck ton better than the one in the net. I was able to go to Vietnam, to see
President Obama speak at the seventieth anniversary of D-Day. Now, i get
invited to visit friends, and have to turn them down because I can't afford a bus
ticket to the next state over. You don't think I'd do anything to get back up on
that bar? So excuse me if I don't take kindly to people who are in my situation,
have the same disability I do, and are using it as an excuse to curl up with their
blankets and take a nap while I'm trying to climb the net. yeah, its their life and
they can do whatever they want to, but I didn't choose to put it on the boards. I
didn't choose to post the proverbial selfie of themselves napping online for
everyone to comment on. They want a hand up, they can damn well ask for it,
just like I did. They don't want to do that, to be honest I don't care what they're
reasons are, the base reason is laziness.
Let me say that again, the base reason, underneath all the bullshit about how
its hard, and how people don't want to hire blind people, and how they're
disabled, underneath all of that is an unwillingness to keep clawing up the net.
and the only thing that makes you unwilling to keep clawing up the net is,
underneath everything, laziness.
Two things.
1. There's an enormous difference between wishing someone with the tools would better their life for themselves, and in looking down on them. I want them to succeed. I want to help if I can, if there's a way, and if I'm close enough/in a position to help. I'm surprised that you can't see the difference between my mindset and yours on this one. If I spoke to such a person, and came to understand that my hopes for their betterment were predicated on unrealistic expectations, I would accept it. The people I would want to shake are, as I said, people I'm closely involved with. People whose lack of motivation, lack of drive, lack of results might actually impact me directly. People who, if the shoe were on the other foot, would have just as much right to scrutinize my own behaviour, find it wanting, and grill me on it. I would never presume to want to shake some random person I don't really know; frankly, it's up to them what they do with their life, and who am I to judge?
2. Wrong. Laziness is not necessarily at the root of this issue in all cases. It can be. It often is. But to make a blanket statement like that is just ignorant. If you do something, fail, try again, fail, and that pattern keeps up for awhile, then I daresay it isn't primarily laziness which may eventually get you to stop trying. That, in fact, is the definition of insanity, or one of them at least...to continue doing the same thing expecting a different result when a particular result is well-established. This is, yet again, something you don't understand because you haven't been there. For people like you, the drive to succeed, to claw your way back up, is always there. I can't conceive of you ever giving up, even if you were totally and completely beaten. But some people just aren't built that way, and to dismiss their defeats as laziness, at rock bottom, is shortsighted, ignorant and flatly incorrect. As I said, sometimes (oftentimes, more like, in this instance) laziness is playing a part in the issue. In my case I'll be the first to admit to you that I'm lazy sometimes. I won't flinch from that. But that's not true of everyone in all cases who aren't climbing and scrabbling the way you are.
Okay, so apparently there are some people on this board topic who appear to believe that any blind person who does not have a job is simply lazy. Apparently, there are no other reasons or possibilities as to why a blind person may not have a job. However, it appears as though these same people do not believe a sighted person faced with the same circumstances in their lives are somehow not lazy. Instead, they are said to have just made bad decisions in their lives.
Seriously? This sounds like a double standard to me. If you claim that a blind person is lazy for not doing anything with their lives, then how exactly can you claim that sighted people are not lazy for doing the same? This does not make any sense to me. Are you somehow saying that sighted people are allowed to make bad decisions in their lives while blind people are not allowed to make bad decisions in their lives? If you claim that anyone possesses the capability of being able to make it in life, then why are you not willing to hold everyone to the same standard? It honestly sounds like you are simply looking down on others simply because they have not achieved the things in life that you have achieve.
But again, it does not appear as though you are willing to do the same things as others in your position are willing to do. If you have a college degree, and are waiting to get into graduate school, then why exactly are you not working some crappy minimum-wage job like everyone else? I can imagine the people who are working some crappy minimum-wage job may think that you are being lazy for not doing what they are doing in their lives. So as you look down on others, know that there are others who can look down on you in the exact same way.
I understand the concept of Parallel arguments. However, I do not see how comparing blind people with the plight of African Americans is a good Parallel argument. According to what I read and observe in my daily life, it does not appear as though African Americans have been able to make the great strides that you claim. In fact, they are still being labeled as being lazy in the same way that you are labeling blind people as being lazy.
I do not think it is beneficial to label anyone as being lazy. Instead, I think it is more worthwhile to consider the circumstances of the lives of others and show them a bit of compassion. I am not trying to look down on anyone here. I simply seek to understand the circumstances of the lives of others rather than simply jump to conclusions or assumptions that might not be true. Perhaps I am not perfect. But this is what I strive to do.
You're beating your head against a wall.
Cat, I do not think that all blind people without jobs are lazy. i think the
people who do not try to do something with their lives are lazy. I make
exceptions for people who have overwhelming disabilities, but blind people, that
is people who are only blind, do not have an overwhelming disability. Hell, I
don't care if the thing you wish to do is to sell soap sculptures on etsy. If that's
what you enjoy doing, and it helps make you money so you can buy the things
you want and pay your bills, then you sculpt that soap to your heart's content.
as for the paralel, I'd have to give you a full education on just how much
progress has actually been made by black people in america. Its dramatic.
They're not nearly at the top of the hill, but they've made huge strides. You
should read something about the reconstruction era, you may find it
enlightening. I suppose my parallel example was a bit too historically involved
for some. My apologies. How about homosexual people? At one point not so
long ago they were considered mentally defected, as were blind people. Now,
only religious nuts think they shouldn't have equal rights. Why can't we do the
same thing? Is that a better parallel for you?
Gregg, I'm perfectly willing to be helpful, but in my experience on here,
simply being available for advice is a recipe for disaster. I've spent hours typing
out, for example, dress advice on here. wE had days long discussions on here
about why you should look at someone when talking to them, and still people
simply said that it was too hard to do, even when they didn't have the reason of
partial deafness to explain why they don't do it. I explained why they should
dress nicely, adn they rejected that because it was outside of their comfort
zone. So I don't see gentle advice doing much good. People have to want to
change, and honestly the best way I've ever seen to get someone to want to
change is shame. When they feel shame for something, they want to change it.
Gentle advice isn't going to make someone feel shame for something.
Thank you for clarifying your position. It is nice to hear you say that anyone who chooses not to do anything with their life is lazy, and that blindness is not necessarily what makes a person lazy.
You claim that African Americans have made great strides over the years. If this is the case, then why do African Americans have the highest unemployment rate among all other groups of people except for people with disabilities? Although I am not even sure if this is a fair comparison as the unemployment rate seems to be defined differently for people with disabilities than it is for the rest of the population. Regardless, they still have the highest unemployment rate among the non-disabled population within the United States.
And if African Americans have made great strides over the years, then why exactly are they still being labeled as being lazy? Perhaps there has been some improvement in the lives of African Americans over the years. However, it does not appear to me as though they are anywhere near being considered as equals in society. . so I am sorry, but this argument just does not hold up for me.
For me, it all boils down to this.
If you are blind, just blind, and you sit at home, claiming disability, with no intention of getting a job...why. Why do you think that's ok, why do you believe that your blindness makes you entitled to do that for the rest of your life?
If you're applying for jobs, or going to school, or raising a family with your partner at work, or all those other things then cool. But if you can't be bothered to work why do you believe it's acceptable simply because you are blind.
Because honestly, if you really have that low expectations of yourself then you'd better not ever complain when sighted people treat you differently. When they help you cross the street when you don't wan't it, or go to cut your food, or pat you on the head.
I'm sick of this double standard, where blind people want to be equal only when it suits them.
And right there is the root of the problem you and I have, Cody.
Shame is unavoidable sometimes, and it can indeed motivate. But it motivates by making people feel bad, about themselves or about something they've done or not done. It motivates in the same way a beesting will motivate you to stay away from a hive. Negative reinforcement, I guess you'd call it.
this is not bad in all cases, but I disagree with you when you say that it's the best way. Of course, your experience tells you it's the best way so I'm obviously going to beat my head against a wall trying to prove otherwise to you.
Suffice to say that it doesn't do well for whatever passes for your image, and it isn't generally conducive to progress in my experience.
In my own experience, there's a continuum of sorts. On one end is the sort of coddling that just panders to feelings and failures as if everything is okay, or soon will be. On the other end is shaming, bullying, browbeating of an extreme even you don't resort to. I think meeting somewhere in the middle of this continuum is best; being compassionate enough to not be rough and judgmental, but being firm enough to state things without sugar-coating everything. Maybe you don't feel that way. That's fine I suppose. Again, just calling it as I see it.
Kat, I don't think Cody's guilty of a double standard here. I think anyone, regardless of their disability or lack thereof, would earn his derision if they had the capacity to work and just weren't bothering to try.
one last thing: the parallel you drew is still flawed, and will always be flawed. Even making it about homosexuality is only a tiny bit better. Again, blindness is a demonstrable disability, and there's no way to get around that. Dark skin or being gay aren't disabilities; they're differences which have not been proven to change the efficiency with which you work and live.
Sure, blind people should try.
But I do understand the barriers even for these that try and try hard.
You Cody, say we can do office work. Why aren’t you doing this to support your financial lacking?
I know the answer to that question, so I’m not looking down on you.
I have done what is called job development for a season.
Technical issues are the main reason just blind persons can’t just get an office job.
These technical issues are created due to how companies decide to set up their office.
They set them up to be efficient, not accessible.
If a company made their office accessible, it not be efficient, and they’d not be able to be competitive in the market place.
So, sure, we have jobs blind people could do provided all was equal, but it isn’t, and can never be.
A great example of this situation is cable TV.
A customer service rep only must help with your bill, or provide a service for you.
This is easy for us it seems.
The issue is, the system is designed so the rep can just view pictures. You have no text in some items.
Next, you must sometimes use printed materials, and these can’t be scanned quickly enough,
How about dispatch? We can’t control two or three moving screens at once, so we are technically outed from that job.
I’ve just given you some valid reasons why a willing blind person trying hard must sit home.
A blind person fresh out of college has all the requirements to get many jobs, but when all is said and done, that one small thing keeps you home.
You can’t see.
If you could see no matter what you went to college for, or your field, you could learn another field.
I see one person talks about social work.
I’ve known blind persons with this degree who have worked in the social work field a few years, but get laid off and can’t get back on.
No, you can’t just go anyplace and get a job in social work as a blind person. This is a myth.
I do applaud all that try, and this is important.
We that have worked, and have jobs I applaud too.
I do think, some realistic thinking need be applied here however.
Wayne, I don't disagree with you at all. It's so, so hard, and I have so much sympathy for people who do everything they can and still don't find a job.
It's the people that have never bothered that get me. That think society should treat them as an equal, yet feel they are also entitled to not have to work, just because they are blind.
Those are the people that bother me.
I am a person who hasn't given everything I had, when I could've done so. There are lots of reasons, and most of them aren't good ones.
I don't expect everything to be handed to me. I'm working on getting my ass in gear now, because I am not happy, and don't want to keep living this way. I don't believe that I'm entitled to help just because I'm blind (in the sense that I don't think the government or anybody else owes me for it), but at the same time, I'd say there's more than just laziness involved. Laziness is a part, but not the whole. I'm getting a government cheque, and it's keeping me afloat, but one day I want to be working/providing for myself somehow. I don't know how long that will take me and how hard it's ultimately going to be, but I've got to try, because while I know I am capable of subsisting this way, I don't want to anymore. I had to hit a really personal sort of rock bottom to understand that I'm actually worth doing things for, that I deserve to be better, do better, get better, essentially.
So I guess my question to you folks is: where does that put me? Am I in the group who earns scorn because I'm not where I ought to be? Am I in the group written off as lazy, and apt to be soon told I'm letting the blind community down? Because I'd like to hope not.
guess what? Black, white, straight, gay, sighted or blind, life is hard. That is a fact of life that no one here is denying. Another fact of life whether people are gay, straight, black, white, blind ETC, is that we all have things that could keep us living off government funding and yes, being lazy. However, what Cody and I are saying is that each person as the individual that they are, has a choice as to how they wanna handle their situation. Do they wanna wine for their entire lives about how hard it is to become employable, or do they wanna get their shit together so that they can be worth something in and to society? Because yes, each person does have a choice about the quality of their life.
Take me for example: although Wayne's reply to my first post in this topic shows that he thinks that I will be denied a job because of my health issues, I can say that while I *may* receive that attitude, I likely won't because of how I carry myself (both in the way I dress and the things I say). Not just that, but to a large extent, I will not be made to suffer for the fact I have serious medical issues that could be problematic at any time. They are all a part of the package that is me, and I speak about them openly because I want people to know that regardless of my medical issues, I will do whatever it takes to earn my beautiful spot in the world. No matter how many times I get knocked down, no matter how many times I get rejected, no matter how many times I experience hardships, I will always come back stronger and a better person over all. I want other blind people, hell, people in general, to have a similar outlook as I do--sure I know that some people here won't, but that doesn't mean that I don't want them to succeed in life. If they choose to make such a sorry attitude their main priority in life as many people have displayed on this topic, that's their choice that they will have to live with every day of their lives. However, if those same people expect me, Cody and others to sit by idly when they shoot their face off in front of us so to speak, they are sadly mistaken. Because believe it or not, even though Cody has a different way of putting things than many of you, he is exactly right in what he's saying here. People who wine and expect the world to give them cookies too, need to change their way of thinking if they wanna make something of themselves.
I always get the, "why don't you teach other blind people for a living," because CCB is pretty close to me. That annoys the hell out of me. Firstly I have no desire to teach, and secondly, my lousy hearing makes it a pain in the ass to interact with people a lot of the time.
To answer your question Gregg, you are just after the group that would
deserve, not condemnation, but some judgment. I'm not going to pour out your
personal story on a board without your permission, but I will say you made
some mistakes that, for me, would make me judge you harshly and feel that
disappointment you talked about earlier. Now you're trying to turn that around,
so you deserve praise for realizing that you don't want to be at rock bottom, so
you're swimming to get back to the surface. But, I would like to point out, your
rock bottom is a form of shame. That's you feeling shame for where you are,
and realizing you don't want it anymore. I'm not talking about bullying people.
I'm talking about them being shameful about where they are and wanting to
change it, just like you did. You had someone who forced you to look yourself in
the face and admit you did not want to be where you are. Usually, being forced
to face it works better than being told you might one day like to face it if you
want to.
CrazyCat, your question is a bit unrelated, so I'm not gonna take the time to
type it here. However, if you want me to, I would be happy to send you a
private message explaining, and maybe make some reading suggestions. I'd be
happy to do that if you wish.
Holly, I actually never thought of that double standard, but you're absolutely
right. It is hypocritical of a blind person to be upset when they're treated in the
stereotypical way, and not work to overcome the stereotypical version of
themselves.
SilverLightning, you forget that shame is a social emotion and not all of us experience it to the same degree. I personally am blessed to feel very little shame. In our conversations I sometimes sense that, instead of discussing thoughts, you're trying to pull emotional strings that simply aren't there. I can recognize the condescension.
That's true. There are always those who don't fit into convenient boxes. but,
basically, even if you can't feel shame or anything else, its up to you to get to a
place where you like. If you want to sit on your duff all day and do nothing, fine,
but you'll have to deal with the condemnation of others, or at least dismissal. If
you want to change your circumstance, which I think you do since you've asked
how to repeatedly, you have to find a way to force yourself to do it. Its all up to
you.
Yes, you are absolutely correct SilverLightning. How dare I ask you to back up your claims about African Americans making great strides within the United States when it has absolutely nothing to do with this board topic.
I have cat. Your ignorance doesn't mean that I have to educate you. You want
to know what I'm talking about by black codes and jim crow laws, the
sharecropping system or post-reconstruction Dunning School Theory, then
google them. I offered to explain to you privately if you wanted, and I still will.
But I'm not going to derail the board post to talk about the history of black
oppression in north america. That's not the subject here.
And yet you were the one who brought up the plight of African Americans on this board topic in the first place.
Yes, as a parallel, that doesn't mean I'm going to make everyone sit through
a basic history of jim crow on this board. I figured people would know enough
about Jim Crow laws and reconstruction history to realize that black people have
made a lot of progress. I even said that they have not reached the top of the hill
yet, but they have made a lot of progress. Likewise have gays, women, and
others. The disabled are one of the few groups that seem to have stagnated. I
personally think part of that is because not many of us are willing to engage in
the struggle.
Now, if that is not enough historical context for you, I'll be happy to explain it
to you in private, or you can read a book about jim crow or black codes. But I'm
not gonna sit here and type out detailed historical explanations on someone
else's board. Sorry that doesn't meet with your satisfaction. Now, do you want
that private message or not?
Why the hell would I want a private message from someone who only looks down on me and puts me down? Sorry. No thanks.
Sorry you feel that way. If anyone else is curious about what I meant, I'll be
happy to send them that message also.
I am sorry you feel the need to put me down by insulting my intelligence. I know exactly what you are talking about here. I simply feel as though your argument about African Americans overcoming their obstacles within the United States is simply not a good argument for this conversation. I honestly think it is rather sad that you live in a world where you feel like you need to look down on everyone all the time.
Maybe some of the stuff I’m gunna say here might deviate from the general discussion, or maybe not, but here goes:
Frankly, I think that Cody raises an interesting point about the disparity between gays, African Americans and other groups versus the disabled. It’s interesting being a part of a couple different minorities myself and objectively (I hope) looking at their disparate struggles and the results of same. I’ve seen more progress over the past ten years or so in terms of gay rights than I’ve seen in disabled rights, and this is despite the fact that 25 years before gay marriage ever became a federal mandate, we supposedly had a federal civil rights bill that was designed to protect the disabled. In some ways it’s easier to be gay now than disabled/blind. Of course, the irony for me is that when I was growing up, there was still a lot of shame and stigma about being gay that there wasn’t about being disabled. Or, perhaps a different way of putting it is that there was a different sort of stigma attached to being disabled that in large measure still exists, I think. Perhaps gay people aren’t hated as much as we used to be, but that hatred made it harder for some of us to join the struggle for gay rights. I myself was relatively reluctant to join that fight because I was scared to death over losing my family, my friends, etc. I think it’s far easier to avoid fights when you’re a part of a minority group that’s looked down upon, derided or sneered at, to name a few things that have happened to gay people over the years. For a long time I suppose I did what was commonly known as passing. No one really knew I was gay because I hid myself so deep in that closet that very, very few people would ever have suspected until I began to let my guard down. I think passing is very common if you’re a part of a minority group that experiences a lot of hatred. But with disabled people there is a different and mmuch harder stigma to overcome, and I think that’s based in the so-called medical model. That is, seeing disability as something that has to be fixed rather than accepted first. Why? Because the medical model is based largely in pity rather than in hatred. And that’s a pretty hard model to overcome, because even we as disabled people sometimes use it, perhaps to compare ourselves to each other rather unkindly. I have a stepcousin with cerebral palsy, who happened to have married a man with cerebral palsy, and in their mid-forties they had a child with severe Downes syndrome. He is now about seven years old, but he’s much more like a three-year-old than a seven-year-old, and honestly, I don’t see him progressing that much further. But then, I have to ask myself whether I know what I’m about. Am I using the medical model perhaps to judge this child more harshly than I ought? Are disabled people more likely to judge ourselves sometimes overly harshly when we compare different disabilities or different abilities within the same group of disabled people? My experience with many blind people is that we can be very bitchy to one another, but I’m not necessarily always convinced it’s a bad thing. Perhaps it does motivate some of us to be better than we thought we could be. Tough love and all that. The problem I sometimes see in shame is that it doesn’t necessarily always work to the good. I think it depends on a combination of factors as to whether shame actually does make a person try harder. I know for me, shame worked because I had to start over from the bottom and work myself back to where I was taking in more than I was spending/paying out. It worked because I eventually got a full-time job again with health benefits, but it also worked because I did and still do have that government check as a disabled worker. Honestly, though, I have to ask myself sometimes whether what I’m doing is entirely fair. Arguably I’m better off than some of my sighted counterparts with whom I work because they don’t have that extra jingle in their pockets. And admittedly that extra jingle I get now is because I paid a llot into SSDI when I was working as an attorney, so I have to say that I did realize a benefit from that time, even if I hated legal work with every fiber of my being. Is it an adequate excuse to accept the government check because I still have a mountain of debt to pay down, and I can pay it down between the two checks if I continue on it? Is it a viable excuse that I’m paying taxes on that government check because it’s SSDI rather than SSI? Is it a viable excuse that I’m working full-time and actually paying toward the SSDI fund while accepting the benefits of same at the same time? A case could be made for all these questions, but perhaps a case can be made in the opposite direction. Not really sure where I wanna take things, but I do think I have some questions, but I guess I’m probably the only one who can answer them.
Two points:
1. To the person, Agat Rain? who mentioned the ADA is imperfect and asked if it had been amended, yes it has. It was amended in 2008 and did correct some of the problems in the original.
2. Cody and Gregg, though I understand the comparison you are drawing with other minorities, your statement that those groups have improved and people with disabilities have not is inaccurate. Though you may be a history buff, you are not old enough to really know what you speak of on this topic. It is true that unemployment stats have been resistant to change. However, they have in fact dropped some, at least for blind people. Though employment is critical, it is also not the only measure of progress. I was born 40 years before the ADA, and I can say unequivically that things have improved a great deal. The progress particularly speeded up under Obama who actually put people and resources on it. So to say there is no improvement, or to say that we can never be truly equal is just defeatism.
I've avoided participating in this topic because I have seen things from both sides of the fense. As a former rehab worker, I used to hold the opinion that people who were only blind and not working were lazy moochers. As I've gotten older and seen things from various perspectives, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot judge another's actions until I've walked in his or her shoes; however, that's not the part of this conversation that finally pushed me into jumping into the fray.
How can you say we will ever be truly equal?
Yes, we can use alternitave techniques, adaptive technology, and so forth but at the end of the day, those of us who are blind are missing one of the most important 5 senses.
When I have the same ability to put on a badge and gun, and hop into the driver's seat of my police cruzer, as the sighted person sitting next to me, then we'll be equal. The same could be said for fire fighting, waiting tables, working retail, construction, etc. When I am able to do a job without my employer having to spend money to make accommodations that they wouldn't otherwise have to make, then we will be equal. When I can fully engage in the nonverbal communication that is so prevalent in social/professional interactions - I'm talking about more than just pointing my face toward a speaker; I'm talking about spotting someone from across a crowded room and making meaningful eye contact here - then I will be equal. When I can access the amenities in communities of my same socioeconomic status ie.e transportation in the suburbs, then I will be equal.
I'm not saying that there are things that we cannot do because that is simply ridiculous. I am however stating facs about our particular disability based in reality rather than idealism. Like it or not, we are at a significant disadvantage that takes a lot to overcome. Some are able to do so and others are not. Are there people who take advantage of the system and slack their way through life? I think we've well established that truth. Just because I see a blind person who's not working, I'm not going to assume he or she is simply being lazy though.
When I can, I'll offer help and encouragement but I will also offer compassion.
If some of you think Cody and I are being rude because we don't "show compassion" towards people in the same way that you do, I hope you think again. It's called tough love, it's called we too have been there, it's called we've more than likely felt shame at one point or another in our lives that's made us wanna change for the better, and mostly, it's called we accept the fact that when people are just blind, they have no excuse to live off monthly government checks. If they can't or don't wanna be a lawyer, if they can't or don't wanna get a PHD, if they can't or don't wanna get a job in customer service and the only thing they can do is factory work at a Lighthouse for the Blind or someplace similar, then they need to get out and do it. They don't need to stay home feeling sorry for themselves every day, because the reality is that that sort of attitude *is* a reflection of blind people as a whole. If blind people who choose to live off government funding for life happen to go somewhere public and meet people, they're communicating to those people "I don't care about how sloppy I look, nor do I care about the fact I feel sorry for myself and don't wanna work. That's the way I love to live, and I don't care who has something to say about it." That's pathetic!! Because as I said, whether those people like it or not, they're probably the only blind person those sighted people will ever meet. This is why I say that it does matter how they come across, and honestly, I'm disgusted that so many people here are rewarding such bad behavior.
Johnty raises a good point. Blind people, and other disabilities I would
assume, don't really face hate. I mean, sure, there are one or two people who
hate us and think we should be gassed or whatever, but the majority of us will
go our entire lives without meeting one of those people. The closest we come to
it is people telling us we can't go into a place because of our guide dogs, and
that, while infuriating, is not life threatening in most instances. Pity, or benign
neglect I think is a better term for it, is much harder to overcome than is
hatred. Hatred makes you angry. Benign pity makes you complacent. If
someone is willing to simply hand you money for doing nothing, give you some
basic protections against unfairness, and give you money for food every month,
its much harder to convince yourself that you should be doing something else. I
suppose it takes the opposite of shame, pride. I think, in order to be the person
who struggles every day to finally get a job and make something of themselves,
requires pride. You have to be too proud to allow yourself to be that kind of
person; no matter the hardships.
Now, if we're going to say that we can never be equal, we can never be on a
par with our sighted counterparts, you might as well just give up now. Because
that equality does not exist. And I don't just mean for the blind, I mean at all.
That equality, the idea that everyone can do something that everyone else can
is a fantasy, and the quicker you rid yourself of that fantasy the better off you'll
be. I, no matter if I were sighted or blind, will never be a good basketball
player. I don't have the height, I don't have the reach. I'm not big enough to
play hockey. I'd be a fair soccer player I think, but I'll never play football. There
are always things you are not going to be able to do that someone else is,
sighted, blind, deaf, mute, whatever. That equality does not exist. The best you
can hope for is to be on a competitive par with the people in your given field,
and that is already achievable for us. Maybe not in jet fighter piloting, but in
countless other fields. Are you really going to make the claim that because you
can't hop in a police car and wear a gun that you can't be equal? Get over
yourself. Deal with the real world, not your fantasy ones.
Chelsea, where were you when I pointed out that working at the Lighthouse and staying home are functionally the same thing? Why would I go to the Lighthouse instead of staying home? And for the love of god answer with a thought and not an emotion. Forereel's pro-Lighthouse answer was the only one that really succeeded at this.
I understand why he used the example, I just don't think it is solid.
Black people can see.
We aren't kept back due to being disable presay, we are limited due to blindness.
Voyager, the difference between the lighthouse and staying home is one is
earned money, and one is given money. Yes, the work may suck, but its work
you can be proud of. What are you proud of staying home and doing nothing?
SilverLightning, most of the tasks that the Lighthouse gives us can either be done more efficiently with better machines or fully automated. They don't need to be done by hand anymore. We have these make-work jobs because the government pays us to have them.
A sighted friend of mine who works at IRS told me that they were required to purchase Lighthouse pens. She disliked those pens, but she said that a certain percentage of their supplies had to be made by disabled people.
So most of these jobs aren't useful and are basically government handouts. If you sent every single blind Lighthouse employee home and gave them the exact same pay and benefits they were getting from working there, nothing would change. Nobody would suffer for lack of the stuff we were making. In fact, they would probably get the same or better stuff made faster and cheaper. How else can I say it? These. Jobs. Are. Made up. You make it sound as if they're real positions like janitor, when they're more like repeatedly digging and filling in a hole. Why would I take pride in that?
Because, while you're right and those positions are artificially created, the
results are not. If the blind people made the pens, and then the government
just took them apart and the blind people made them over again, you'd be
right. But they don't. Yeah, the position is artificial, it was created by an act of
congress, but the people standing at those lines are still making something.
They can still point to a pen and say, "I made that with these two hands and
this is the paycheck I got for it." Can you point to anything and say, "That is my
contribution to the public good?"
Hell, I'd settle for the pen-making job at this point if it was available here.
Contact your state rehab office. I don't know where you live in the state, but I
do know they have some small jobs like that in fort Carson colorado, which I
believe is near you.
I stepped back to get some more perspective. Now that I've got it, I'm back, but likely for the last time.
1. In school, and in life, I have always, always hated the concept of busywork...that is, work which is artificially created to either 1. eat time, 2. distract from some other use of same or 3. act as a means of generating pride. For those people who have and maybe even enjoy a factory job of the sort being talked about, I won't take that away from them. However, if there are other people who would rather get the same money and spend their time doing other things, I really can't fault that either. If a job is there, gives you the same money as you'd get from not having it, and essentially makes you do repetitive tasks for many hours every day, tasks which might even repeat in RSI for the hands and wrists I should add, do you really think most people (blind, sighted, what have you) should be jumping at the chance to fill them? One of the reasons that most people have a job is because it lets them do things they wouldn't be doing otherwise. Note that I do say one of the reasons, but not the only one. For factory-style jobs like this, where the only arguable benefits are the ability to point at a pen and say "I made this with my own hands" and the ability to say "I went out to work today", where there's no financial benefit and plenty of hours in the day given over to tasks that don't really enrich a person's life...well frankly, I see exactly where Voyager's coming from.
2. Thank you, Cody. You finally seemed to acknowledge that shame is not necessarily the driving force behind all acts of self-betterment. There's pride, too. And pride is a thorny beast at the best of times, particularly for people who don't have very much self-worth. I will not make excuses here, and I will not derail the board by spilling my life story, but suffice it to say that I have had issues of self-sabotage and lack of self-confidence for years; maybe they're not obvious, but they're there, and I can trace much of my really bad decisions - some of which have destroyed some very important things in my life - at least in part to these issues. So okay, yes. I've been lazy at times, you won't hear an argument from me. But I've also been struggling with issues I have until recently not known how to deal with. And since they're issues related to self-worth, the very thought of seeking outside help for them has (again, until recently) run into the very real roadblock of "Christ, you're not worth it. You'll just be wasting someone else's time. Just figure it out". Now, you didn't really know any of that, so I'm not asking for your shoulder to cry on, or your pity, or anything else. But that's the point. You didn't know that, but you talk about harsh judgment and disappointment and all that before you knew all of the facts (you still don't, but that's fine). And this is the fundamental difference right here. I am the sort of person who will do everything I can not to judge, or at least judge too firmly, until I know all the details; you seem content to know the outside of the matter, and will act accordingly. This leads me to my next point.
3. Chelsea, you really had me going there for a little while, thinking the tough-love thing was actually tempered by sympathy. But in nearly the next breath you're destroying all of your credibility by doing an even more extreme version of the thing I've been after Cody for. Put another way: how dare you level a judgment without the facts.
4. Just to make this clear: if I knew that someone was not employed, taking SSI or whatever, had the skills to work, but couldn't be bothered, yes that would bother me. Yes that might make me give my head a shake, and might make me want to dismiss that angle of things. But the difference between my tough love and that professed by some others here is that mine is genuine. It's not just my given right to speak harshly, dressed up as tough love; it's the desire to help, to understand, or if nothing else works, to simply walk away when my opinion is not going to matter. I might wade in with both feet if it's my partner we're talking about, and she'd have the same right to do so with me. But unless I know you very well, and unless for some reason your situation reflects directly on me, I'm only gonna go so far with you.
5. Equality. Let's not gild the lily with fancy feel-good rhetoric. We lack a sense. That is a basic physical disability. We deserve to be treated well, and deserve to not be persecuted for our lack of sight. That's a given. But we are not equal, not really, not in the sense of overall capacity. And since our lack of eyesight is apt to throw more wrenches than, say, being short or not being too muscular - note how all your jobs were athletic, Cody? - and since we're talking about overall employability here, I think this is open and shut. We deserve much better than we're getting, and I think we should all remember to keep fighting the good fight where we can. But let's be honest with ourselves about the rest of it.
Just one thing to say Gregg, shame and pride are two sides of the same coin.
You can't have one without either the presence or the risk of the other. Pride is
the active avoidance of shame, and shame is the failure to obtain that which
would give you pride. Same principle.
Definition of pride:
feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired.
Definition of shame:
painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior.
The only commonality there is right/wrong behaviour, and even that's tenuous. These two things are not opposites. In particular I draw your attention to the fact that pride is not the avoidance of shame.
You are at least partially correct in that they often exist closely to one another (being ashamed of yourself means you're not proud of yourself), but that's about as close as it goes. And that's nowhere near what you were saying in your last post, sorry.
What's the difference between shame and guilt? I can feel guilt from the realization that my actions harmed someone but SilverLightning's use of the word "shame" sounds like he means something deeper than that.
That's the problem with going with a straight definitions, you have to depend
on the dictionary to cover every facet of a word. Pride can also mean a
resistance to low quality. Like being too proud to fail or admit defeat. Shame
can also mean feeling bad about not being able to succeed. Two sides, same
coin.
Voyager, guilt is being sorry for doing something, shame is feeling bad about
something. Guilt is more like regret, shame is more like anger at oneself.
I think this is clearly one of those cases where people are attaching more (or less) meaning to different words. The desire to do better because you realize you've done wrong...that's not shame, in and of itself. Shame is really only the bad feeling which results when you know you've fucked up; the desire to do better, or the anger at yourself, or anything else, isn't really shame, it's just along for the ride as far as I see it.
Same goes for pride, but with slightly different details of course.
The point being, lack of self-confidence/lack of pride in myself, which did not necessarily come from either being ashamed or doing something to be ashamed about I might add, contributed in some measure to where I've ended up. Shame is not what motivates me to change; the realization that I'm better than this, deserve better than this, is what motivates me. I should also note that it didn't take one other person to make me stare this in the face...or not in the way you meant, anyway. When you're in a position like mine, there's really only one person who's going to get you to accept that things have to change. That's you. Other people can do whatever they wish, but ultimately if you don't want to change your lot, it's not going to happen.
And the reason this matters? Because shame is such an easy word to slap on bad behaviour, as a motivator or as the easy way to summarize what went wrong. It is rarely shame on its own. And in some cases, at least, there's much more to someone's so-called laziness than just their shame or guilt about their shortcomings. I daresay it still needs addressing, but writing it off as one lump-sum problem is shortsighted and rarely helpful.
Kat, I missed this in my last message, but I'll say it now. Cody is actually trying to help you understand something. Dismissing the points he made because of how he made them is kind of silly. Now, I've stated before that I don't think the comparison is terribly apt, but I see what he was trying to do at least. My taking issue with his delivery is entirely separate to the point he's making. I won't refuse to be potentially educated by someone who rubs my fur the wrong way, and I don't think anyone else should either, where possible.
Personally, there are few things I believe less than the phrase "I don't judge".
Everyone does, just some people do their best to fool themselves into thinking
that what they're doing isn't judging.
Good point.
Please forgive me. My compassion is starting to run low for someone who comes across to me as an arrogant self-righteous asshole. I did not personally attack or put down anyone else for their opinions and arguments. So I am not quite sure why there is any need to personally attack me or put me down for my opinions and arguments. I simply thought the argument about African Americans was simply not relevant to this conversation.
However, since there was an argument being made that African Americans have made great strides to overcome their obstacles within society, I wondered how this could be true given the fact that they currently have the highest unemployment rates and are still being labeled as being lazy. I was asking these questions based on current circumstances and not past history.
However, perhaps this is still a Parallel argument as both blind people and African Americans have been able to overcome their obstacles to some degree within society.
Ok Cat, here's the thing. As I said, black people are not at the top of the hill
yet. I've said this a dozen times now. yes, there is much much much much
more to do to make them equal. However, they're not slaves. They're not
sharecroppers, which is the same thing as slaves really. We can all agree on
that. Black people fought for equal access to voting rights, housing rights, job
rights, so on and so forth. They're not perfect yet, but they've fought for them,
and won a lot of battles in that fight. At one time, black people were taken out
of prisons and killed with no recourse from the general public. at one time
announcements for those killings were printed in local newspapers. Now, there
are anti-lynching laws that black people fought to put in place. Blacks at one
point had an almost totally illiterate population. Now, that is no longer the case.
Homosexuals, at one point, were actually in the DSM as a diagnosable mental
disorder. They were tortured, literally tortured. You can watch videos of people
who had blocks of ice put on their hands to the point of getting hypothermia
and even frost bite to try and so-called cure them of their homosexuality. This
still goes on in some states, but its starting to be fought back against. Many
countries, sadly not america, but many have banned gay conversion therapies.
There are people fighting to have camps shut down where parents can pay to
have their child kidnapped and dragged away to be tortured for years without
escape for their gayness. it hasn't passed yet, but the fight is being waged.
Now, unless you want to make the argument that none of these things
represents any positive progress, I think you have to agree that both these
groups have made some strides towards equality. Note, towards equality is not
the same thing as arriving at equality. Can we agree on that basic principle?
That black people are no longer slaves in america, and that is a good thing?
That homosexuals are not considered mentally defective, and that is a good
thing? That both these things are movements towards, but not reaching, total
equality?
Now, at one time blind people were sent to institutions like the one where
Annie Sullivan grew up. They were used as basic manual labor, usually caning
chairs and making brooms. This is no longer the case. At one time, blind people
were frequently sent to mental institutions, and even had ice picks stabbed
through their eye socket to lobotomize them so they would be dossal and
complacent with the harsh, cruel, and inhumane treatment they were given at
those institutions. This is no longer the case. At one time there were no
protections for blind people in jobs, housing, marriage, child raising, schooling,
training, and more; just as there once was no protection in those fields for
black people and homosexuals. At one time blind people were thought of as
mentally defective, just like homosexuals. They no longer are, just like
homosexuals. Many times throughout history blind people were actually used in
experiments, just as black people were. This is now illegal for both groups. Blind
people once had the stereotype of being able to do nothing more than sell
thermometers. This is no longer the case.
Honestly, if you can't see the parallels between the black civil rights
movement and the blind civil rights movement, you need to learn more. Even
the experts in the fields have made note of it. I'm in the process of getting an
essay published with that as its thesis. A doctoral student at the university of
ohio wrote his doctoral thesis and used that as one of his arguments. Books
have been written tracing the black influence on american history, and the
disabled history of america. There is actually a book you can read right now that
traces the history of disability in america back to pre-columbian times. Written
by a professor at the university of toledo, who has also made this exact claim.
So if you're going to sit here and tell me that this parallel doesn't work, you
either don't know much about the civil rights movement, which is likely and
excusable since we do a piss poor job of teaching it and just boil it down to
1955 through 1968 and focus it all on King, or you simply don't know what the
word parallel means. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say its
the first one.
Notice Cat, that I said your ignorance is excusable, and I offered to help
alleviate that. I did not say your stupidity, or your idiocy, or your foolishness. I
said ignorance. As in you didn't know something, and I was offering to tell you
so you could learn something that I happen to be very familiar with. I've been
studying the history of blacks in america since 2010. I assume you have not
done so. However, you decided that you wanted to throw a hissy fit for some
reason because you thought I was looking down on you. When in reality, all I
was doing was saying that you seemed to have some blank spots in your
knowledge, which is not your fault and is true of everyone, and I was offering to
help fill them in and answer any questions you may have had. However, since I
didn't want to have to make everyone else read it, and since this board is
supposed to be about working while blind, I thought it best you and I have that
discussion in private. That, apparently, was not good enough for you, and so
you felt the need to throw a temper tantrum on here.
I am absolutely certain there are things you are vastly more educated on than
I am Cat. I am absolutely certain of that. and when a time comes that one of
those subjects comes up on the boards I hope you will have the basic common
decency to offer to take it off the boards so you can instruct me where other
people don't have to waste time reading it if they don't want to. That is the
courteous thing to do in this circumstance. I'm sorry you got your panties in too
big a bunch to realize I was offering to answer your questions the entire time if
you'd just taken a breath and noticed it.
But now we've both wasted everyone's time. So, do you have any questions
about what I've said here?
Now, back on topic. I just read an article in the odyssey, sorry I haven't
mastered pasting links or I'd do so here, but it was about how people should
hold blind people to the same standards they hold everyone else to. It asked
how blind people were expected to succeed if everyone treated them as if being
able to tie their shoes was an accomplishment. I completely agree with this
article, as I think most of you would too if you read it; again, sorry for not
pasting.
But here's my question, if we expect sighted people to hold us to an equal
standard, and we expect them to treat our small accomplishments as small, and
our big as big, and to realize that tying our shoe at the age of thirty is not an
accomplishment but a basic requirement for social interaction, or crossing a
street is just something we have to learn how to do just like everyone else, and
we have to do that so we can get to school, and work, and home again. If we
expect sighted people to hold us to that standard, why do we not hold each
other to that standard? Why do we think it is acceptable for some of us to be at
one level, and not expect everyone else to be at that level. I'll use Gregg as an
example. I expect Gregg to know how to tie his own shoes, because I am blind,
and Gregg is blind, and I am an adult, and Gregg is an adult, and I know how to
tie my own shoes. If Gregg does not know how. I expect Gregg to learn how. If
Gregg does not want to learn how, I question Gregg. I question why Gregg is ok
not knowing how to tie his own shoes. Maybe Gregg has a reason. Maybe Gregg
lost all his fingers in a boating accident, and so he can't tie his shoes. In which
case, Gregg is no longer simply a blind person and is given separate
considerations which I know nothing about.
i expect Gregg to be able to cut his own food. I expect Gregg to be able to
dress himself. I expect Gregg to work towards employment. I expect Gregg to
have goals for his life and to work toward those goals. I expect this because this
is what society expects of every person. we, blind people, have to fit into a
society, we have no choice. it is that, or be a burden on society. You either fit in,
are carried by, or are dead, those are the choices. Children are carried by,
adults fit in, dead people are dead. I expect Gregg, and Chelsea, and Voyager,
and Cat, and everyone else who is simply blind, to work toward that standard,
because that is the standard of society.
If you choose to fall short of that. If you make the conscious decision to be
carried by and not fit into society. If you knowingly decide to simply be dragged
along, rather than struggle to find a niche into which you fit, I, and everyone
else who is engaged in that struggle while being in the same place as you, has
the right to judge you. Because we are where you are, and we aren't stopping.
There are people who are blind and have well paying jobs right now. They
worked hard, they fought through, and they succeeded. I have a friend who I
celebrated with just two weeks ago because, after several hundred applications
to different schools, she finally found a school willing to let her teach; a skill for
which she has two degrees.
So, if we expect sighted people to hold us to an equal standard, why are we,
the blind people who know what is at stake and what is required, not allowed to
judge more or less harshly those who have chosen to fall short of the standard
society holds us to? Or, put slightly differently, what gives you the right to force
me to carry you? What gives you that right?
Cody, I take it you're using internet explorer? If not, it could be the same anyway. Alt D will take you to the address bar, simply copy link with control C, come in here and paste it with control V.
Thanks, but no, I'm not using internet explorer. I know how to paste the link.
I don't know how to make it a linkable link, if that makes sense.
I think I need to tell a story here that may reinforce a lot of points made on here.
A few months ago, someone I know moved to my state to try to start over with life. I was able to find her a job making spices and such, of witch would be sold to military bases around the state. When I told her what she would be doing, the first thing I got was, okay no, I am capable of better than that. now, this person hadn't graduated highschool, and had no working history to speak of, so I told her she had to start with what she could get and work her way up, because that is just what most people have to do, and 2 weeks later, she walked out of her job because she thought it was not worthy of her. She has moved back home, and still does not have a job. No one will take her for lack of schooling and most importantly, lack of networking and work history. The point of me telling this is, I know a lot of people who don't take jobs because they look pointless, or don't pay a lot of money, or what have you. But starting at the bottom is not about getting ahead, its about building a resume. Sighted people take jobs they hate all the time, that have crap pay, that make them upset at even telling people what they do, but they do because they have to survive, and because they need a starting point to move up the latter. I had to do the same thing. So if you think a job is not worth it, you will never find anything better. As someone who has reviewed resume's, interviewed people, and fired people, I will say that people look at your work history. they want to know if your willing to do the jobs that no one else wants to get to where you need to be. they want to know if your willing to indure the things you don't like to get to the things that you do. and if they see that, its a plus on your side. But if your not willing to do what it takes to move up the latter, and the rest of us are out here as cody said, fighting the good fight to change this, then yes, I have the right to judge. People think that because I am blind, and because I have the program in this state, that I was handed this job, but I had to go through the same process as everyone else. They looked at my schooling, work history, and in this case, I had to pass an SF*^ security clearance check. But the only reason I got here is because I took the jobs that no one else wanted, even when I knew I could do better. Think about that, and if it sounds like I am judging, its because I am and I don't give a damn. If you have other reasons as to why you cant work as I have said before, then you do what you do, who am I to tell you anything. But if you have no excuse and you just think that the starting jobs have no point, then yeah, your lazy because you are not willing to do what it takes to climb this latter. keep looking for jobs, take the crappy 8 dollar an hour job. it will pay mor than what you get now, and you can actually say you worked for it instead of saying that the tax payers work for it for you while you sit at home on your computer playing games.
All of these are decent enough points. They just forget the thing I've been trying to drill since the start:
You (as in, the person judging) rarely knows all the facts, and what I'm seeing a lot of here is judgment without knowledge.
Yes, we all judge. We're all even going to jump to conclusions sometimes. But speaking personally here, I try and do this as little as possible. When I do it, it's gentle (that is, I will immediately apologize or step back if I learn something that changes or invalidates my judgment). When I do it, I have no right to use it as a club, because I know right from point 1 that I don't know everything.
I don't really see that happening with some of you. It's enough to know that I wasn't doing everything I should in order to become employed, and I was told you'd be disappointed/harsh toward me for it. The reasons for not doing everything I could have either don't matter enough to state, or they're viewed as nothing more or less than excuses.
Now, I don't actually want to be treated with kid gloves. I don't actually mind that people view me a little harshly, because I do need to get off my ass and move forward...need to and want to, and am doing so by degrees. But not everyone is motivated that way. Not everyone will respond well to that. Many, in fact, respond very negatively to that sort of reinforcement. It is perceived by them as a negative, stressful or even a hostile reaction, and they'll flinch from it. How do I know? Because I've been there. I am one of the lucky ones who has learned to channel that bad feeling into something at least nominally productive. Not everyone can do that.
Let me sum this up, and then I'll really be gone. I'll probably keep reading, but I'm' going to stop responding, because this grows more circular by the post.
You don't want to have to carry me. Okay, fine. Don't carry me. Don't help me. Don't do anything you don't want to do, if you know enough of the facts to think you realize I'm going to drag you down.
But for heaven's sake don't stomp on me on your way past. Walk wide of me. Your loud judgments do more harm than good for most. If you want to help me, then do it. If you don't, then go your way, and fight the good fight, and remember that you're the one in the right.
As I said before, everyone does judge, and I'd be tempted to give fairly short shrift to someone who had the potential and just didn't want to bother. LTE, your friend who felt the job was beneath her is a good example; you take what you can get sometimes. But I'd either spend my time trying to help them, or I'd just walk away and spend my time on something productive. Throwing heavy words around doesn't make me feel good as a person. It doesn't contribute to the equal rights movement for the disabled. In many cases it de-motivates people instead of stirring them. It makes people angry, hurt, and defensive. If I truly want to contribute to this struggle - and I do - then stepping on the less fortunate on my way up is not the way to go.
holding hands isn't going to make change. sometimes people only listen to harsh words, because otherwise spoon feeding can be easily ignored. SO yes, I am throwing harsh words around, but its only because I know blind people can do a lot mor than they are doing and some are making it a point not to. As I said, if you have an excuse fine. people tend to ignore that point that has been made several times on this board. but if you are not doing it just because you don't feel you should or have to or what ever... I don't need to say anymore.
Wow, not often I get to say this but, what he said.
I should also add this for Gregg's sake if nothing else. The thing you seem to
be overlooking is this Gregg. Yes, we admit that there can be some midigating
circumstances. Like I said earlier, if you can't tie your shoes because of a
boating accident that cost you you're fingers, that's fine. I understand. No
fingers equals no tying shoes.
However, if someone is only blind, meaning they have no other disabilities but
blindness, the reason we, or at least I, don't accept any midigating
circumstances is because I'm also just blind. I know what those circumstances
are, and I know perfectly well that they can be overcome with effort. So, in that
situation, yes, we can judge, because we do know all the circumstances. Some
people might have it harder than others, but we at least know that the
challenges you face can be overcome if you just try. The way we know that is
that we are in the process of doing it. If you don't want to put in that effort,
that's called laziness. That's why we can judge without having to make all these
exceptions. Because we aren't willing to take the excuses at face value like you
seem to be. You seem to be willing to have someone simply say " I can't do it
because of X" and you say, "Oh, well ok, that's fine I guess, sorry." But we, or
at least I, respond by saying, "Bullshit, yes you can, now get up and do it."
That's the major difference here. I cut through the bullshit, you allow people to
get away with it.
people who are blind work. People who are sighted work. People who are sighted with no legs, or cancer, or who suffer from seizures to a mild extent worki. so if your just blind... you'd better have a good damn excuse other than I can't do it. As I said, I don't look down on valad reasons.
LTE I don't know if you meant to imply this but Lighthouse jobs aren't at the bottom of a ladder, they're a dead end. You can't get promoted and none of the skills you learn there will transfer anywhere else. When I worked there many of my coworkers had been doing essentially the same job longer than I'd even been alive.
Bullshit voyager. There are lots of skills that are transferable in those jobs.
Following instructions, working well in teams, problem solving, dependability,
speed, accuracy, quality, attention to detail, communication, punctuality, and I
could go on. All of these are skills that you can practice at a lighthouse job that
transfer well to other jobs, and that doesn't even take into consideration if you
want to move to a bigger factory job that pays better, which some blind people
do. So, in that, you're utterly wrong.
Now, it is true that promotion is not likely there. But its not meant to be a
career. Its meant to be a job. You're not supposed to use it for your entire life's
income. That's one of the problem with being willing to settle and just take what
you get handed to you. Those jobs are to help get you on your feet. Get you in
the ring and get you swinging. They are not meant to be the entire career path.
I know some retired blind people who do those types of things because they are retired and don't want ot be board and I pat them all on the back for working when they don't have to. But as cody said, not only the skills, but the willingness to do something that you don't want to is a very important thing that you totally ignored.
TL/DR: Lots of good points being made; important to consider all factors; even we who are floundering might not be able to pin-point why.
Weighing in here as I’ve been reading for a while now. I think many of the major contributors here are right to a large degree. I mean yes, we all need to work; even if the pay is low and if we believe it beneath us. We need to do it to gain experience to one day attain something better. Working, volunteering and sadly, networking are the pillars of employment. Education, be it scholastic or applied is essential also. Some pride is healthy, but there are times when it is limiting when it gives us a false sense of superiority. The issue arises though with the circumstances surrounding a person’s unwillingness to apply themselves. Some people genuinely may be lazy, but I’d wager there are always midigating circumstances to consider. We can look at someone and see their actions – or lack of, but unless we have some insight into their past or their minds, we don’t really know what other factors contribute to those actions. And that’s why judging, though we all do it to a degree, is harmful, because we don’t really know their circumstances. Perhaps people have been pounded down by parents, peers or society in general to the point they genuinely feel like they can’t do something. Perhaps there is a mental illness component. Or maybe someone has just been raised so long in an over-protective shell that they never developed the drive to break free.
Case and point: I have talents as a writer, sort of, and a musician – a little bit, and a voice actor – kind of, and a sound designer/audio producer – more or less. I’m literally a jack of all talents, and a master of absolutely nothing. I have taken ten years to achieve it, because I’ve been going slowly so I can live my life and stay out of debt, but I am nearly done my bachelor of arts with a masters in creative writing. Creative writing! Who needs that? I’ve spent ten years going for something unnecessary. Now I’m nearly done with little to show for it but a gentle apathy for writing. I’ve worked on the beginnings of numerous books and stories, and half as many starts to audio theatre productions. I’ve found out I could take a whole pile of computer certification courses – real ones – absolutely free. I’m genuinely curious about working as a physical/massage therapist despite the blindness stereotype … and yet I work in the financial industry doing a job that definetly pays the bills, but that I have little passion for. In short, I feel completely spread thin, and have no idea what to focus on. And also, I am comfortable in my current life and am worried about change, because I can, in this role, support my family. I am unmotivated and a bit intimidated. Scared of change and honestly uncertain what direction to go. One could easily look at my circumstances, despite the fact I actually do have a job – and consider me lazy. Maybe they’re right. But there’s a strange dichotomy between wanting change, and feeling mentally limited from making that change. I expected to come to the point faster, but I guess what I’m trying to say is even some of us who are floundering, though we may want to make more of our lives might not even know why we are having trouble doing so. It’s frustrating to say the least, especially when I know the only one who can fix me, is me. That's my thought, feel free to psycho-analyze and tell it like you see it. I don't need to be handled with kid gloves.
I don't think anyone should call you lazy. I certainly wouldn't. You're still
trying to find your direction, but you're supporting yourself. That's not lazy,
that's responsible. I applaud you for that.
I did raise the points that a Lighthouse job can help you in many ways.
The other point I’d like to restate, is 99% of the time, you can work one of these type jobs, plus keep your full benefits.
Maximizing both this Lighthouse job and your benefits helps.
You have more money, you can build credit, and you have something to do.
I will agree on the simple task such as tying shoes, we should be held to the same standards as the sighted, but I disagree we should be held 100% to sighted people’s standards. reason for this, is the lack of sight.
You that have been blind from birth don’t realize all the things you lack no matter what technology you have.
Let’s talk about these low paying jobs you do for experience and such.
You cannot just go grab a burger flipping, or a room cleaning, or a waiter person, or many other jobs that could support you to a degree.
A waiter at a popular eatery can earn as much as 2, 3 grand per month believe it or not.
How about bartender. That job can keep you well, but a blind person has no way of doing it.
Sure, you can pour drinks, can probably serve them provided you aren’t dealing with a large crowd.
No, we should not be held to the same standards, and we are fortunate we aren’t.
We are also fortunate we live in places that help us not be beggars, many don’t.
We can choose not to accept these jobs built for us.
In some places, a blind person would love to have one.
It would be a bad thing to replace the blind workforce with machines. You may not want a job such as this, but some folks receive self-respect through them.
They purchase homes, have more money, feel they are more a part of regular society.
No, not everyone maximizes these opportunities, but it is possible.
The sighted do jobs such as this, so why not us?
Holy fuck! how about you stop insulting my intelligence? Or is it totally impossible for you to actually treat someone with kindness and compassion?
The first mention of African Americans on this board topic was to serve as an example of a segment in our population who has made great strides within our society. This was used to contrast the strides that the blindness community has made over the years.
I do not believe someone can argue that African Americans have made great strides within our society when they still have the highest unemployment rates and are still being labeled as being lazy. This is not to say that they have not made any strides at all. I just simply disagree with you that these strides are considered to be great. I honestly do not understand why you automatically feel the need to look down on me and insult me simply because I happen to disagree with you.
And my understanding is that a parallel argument is one that is similar to the argument that is being made. However, the first mention of African Americans on this board topic seeks to contrast how the progression of the blindness movement is different than the African American movement. If you are contrasting two different things, I do not understand how this is a parallel argument.
There is really no need to personally attack someone or insult their intelligence when debating someone. Perhaps you may wish to learn this still if you are looking to obtain a job that requires you to debate someone or negotiate deals with others. People do not want to work with others who come across as arrogant self-righteous assholes any more than they want to work with people who are lazy.
Wayne, thank you for better expressing the point I was trying to make.
Then I'm afraid you're simply wrong Cat. Anyone who thinks the african
american community has not made great strides toward a better, brighter future
is simply wrong. I don't know why you're wrong, I still say its probably
ignorance of the deeper issues, since that is something most people in america
have, but whatever the reason, you're simply wrong. There is also probably
some clouding by emotions. You see bad things happening in the news to black
people, and think it couldn't possibly have been much worse in the past. But I
assure you it was. The fact you don't know that is not my problem. If you don't
want someone to be more intelligent than you on an issue, you're going to have
a hard time in life, cuz everyone is.
aS for parallel arguments, they work like this. You make one claim, then
compare it to another, similar group. Blind people are fighting for civil rights,
black people are fighting for civil rights. See the parallel there? But while I think
blind people are at about the same point black people were in the 20s, and
certainly just after world war I, black people have progressed far past that both
in pure progress of rights, and in tactics. Hell, just in number of organizations
fighting for their rights black people had our movement beat decates ago. wE
have two, they had dozens. That's how parallel arguments work. You compare
two things, and show where they divide. Its not difficult.
I honestly think it is sad that you feel the need to continue to insult me and my intelligence. I also think it is sad that you feel the need to label someone as being wrong simply because they happen to have a different opinion than you. I am honestly not quite sure how far these attitudes and behaviors will get you in life. However, you are free to make your own choices just as much as anyone else.
I know Cat. But sadly, that's not something you get to have an opinion on.
You can have an opinion on many things, but that is not your opinion. That is a
statement on a fact, and it is one that is simply wrong. but we're getting very
very far afield here, which is why I originally wanted to have this conversation in
private. Would you like to get back to the subject at hand, or would you rather
continue to be butt hurt about me not treating you sweetly when you're trying
to prattle on inanely about my chosen field of expertise?
It's an interesting parallel, black and blind. In some ways I can see the intersections and Cat, as someone who has been at the noxious end of Cody’s brand of disagreement on quite a few occasions, I don’t really think he’s being all that bad to you in this case. But Cody, what do you mean by we of the blind are at the same place the blacs were in the 20s? Are you talking about in advocacy, or rights? Because I'd say we are far, far better off than the blacks were in the 20s. You're right that things have come a long way for them. Could things be better? Absolutely. Heck, you could say the same thing about women's rights; also great strides, but also a long, long way to go. I won’t pretend to know as much about civil rights as you probably do, just thought I’d like to clarify.
Since when is labeling something as being great considered to be a statement based on a fact when the word*great* is rather subjective?
I am entitled to my own opinion just as much as anyone else. If you wish to disagree with it, then that is fine. But to insult my personal character simply because we disagree only makes you look like an arrogant self-righteous asshole.
And there was nothing preventing you from contacting me privately if that was what you wanted to do.
I agree with Cody, God help me, on one thing. There is no such animal as equality. Not really. For a discussion of this type, we need to define what we mean by equal. What is usually meant when speaking of civil rights, or disability employment, is equal opportunity. In other words, one is not prevented from working or having normal rights solely on the basis of the disability. Having equal opportunity does not mean you are actually equal to anyone else. I am blind, sure that is a disadvantage compared to some in some areas of endeavor. However, I am intelligent, well trained in my field, and have exceptional hearing. So I am actually superior to many other people blind or sighted who do not have those traits. So Smiling Sun Shine and Gregg, no you aren't equal in a visual arena, but that does not mean you cannot ever achieve equality. We don't want sighted people to discount us solely on the basis of visual acuity, so we also need to not discount ourselves and our abilities to succeed. We just need equal opportunity, an equal shot.
Cat, Cody is a condescending person. Don't take it personally, he cannot help himself. His disability is not blindness, it is condescention.
alright cat. I think what you are missing here is, black people in the past have been segregated, torchered, hung publicly for just being black, barred from jobs because they are black and nothing else, didn't have equal access to education, the list goes on. Look at the issues blind people have and are facing right now. being barred from work just because of being blind, not having equal access to education though being in a different capacity, the list goes on. And the thing is, all of those things are not opinions, they are fact, meaning these examples refer to something that actually happened, not someones sideways interpretation of what they think happened based on hear say or personal formulations, they are actual events, that have been witnessed and documented. so putting those situations side by side works here, because both groups have faced similar things, and still do. both have come a long way as far as groups representing them and fighting for equal rights. both groups have been excepted in the public eye mor and mor. But just like even here in 2017, as the world is still not color blind, the world still lacks quite a bit of education on the capabilities of the blind, and form conclusions based on what they think they know, as was done with black people. So saying that this is your opinion is fine, but you can't argue with proven facts. that is all cody is trying to say. You need to really watch how you argue with people in factual subjects like this.
Silver Lightning post statistics to back up your statements about african-Americans all having a brighter future instead of opinions with no references to back them up. In section "Gender and race" at the following link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States
it is clear that on average African-Americans are still at a large disadvantage compared to whites. If you look at the high school graduation/dropout section of this article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_achievement_gap_in_the_United_States
it is clear that initial gains were made before 1990 but progress has stalled.
And if you want to feel sad look at "Racial wealth gap"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_United_States
While the stats may be somewhat scued by outliers it's clear there are massave wealth differences between minority groups in the United States. Is it really that hard to look up sources to back up your statements? Until you take the time to do this nothing you say should be considered valid.
From what I've seen, from friends, and the likes on here, a lot of blind people are just not interested in bettering their lives. They expect to get a donald trump salary, and if not then there's no point in working. That's ridiculous in itself, how many sighted people work at minimum wage jobs to make ends meet? I'm sure they'd appreciate a huge salary, but it's not likely. You don't see them saying, "Well I rather sit at home and collect unemployment rather than flip burgers because I tend to burn myself on the grill. Learning new techniques is not worth it."
I dropped out of high school, ended up pregnant, no I do not work now, yes once my transportation gets in place I'll be able to work and I plan to. Up until I become a full time student. People fail to realize that SSI wasn't meant to be lived on. Us as blind people should take it as a helping hand until we are stable on our feet. So many colleges and programs make you be an intern for a reason. What's wrong with working at the lighthouse? Least you can say your doing something. I would pack soaps and candles all day if it meant 400 dollars more in my wallet.
So what if it's tidious? There's a lot of those jobs, do you think receptionists like taking calls over and over again? Do you think people at walmart like stocking shelves over and over again? hell no, but it feeds their family. I dropped out, went back and got my deploma, I've had so many obstacles in my life, and still I did it. I'm doing it and I'll continue to do it. It's working with what you are good with. Ok, your not good making friends or being social, so your not able to network. Cool, that's not the only way to get a job. Dress nice, go into places and ask for interviews, fill out many applications, find places that do hire disabled people. Publics grocery store for example hire blind or disable people, there's a vet hospital down here that always hires blind receptionist. DDo your research, don't make excuses. Your not hurting us, your hurting yourself.
to the post 110
SilverLightning, most of the tasks that the Lighthouse gives us can either be done more efficiently with better machines or fully automated. They don't need to be done by hand anymore. We have these make-work jobs because the government pays us to have them.
ok those are hand out jobs? So your telling me you much rather take the governments money and run with it, sit around all day. Instead of giving back and working thos apparent hand out jobs?
I'm confused, I would feel more better about getting government money if I had to work for it. They should make those who are capable despite their handicaps, disabilities work for the money instead of just receiving it. Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. What's wrong with that?
also, I'm not getting into this racial debate.
I think blind people should work harder, end of case.
Ok, I will explain this again, please read carefully. Black people in america are
not, not not not not not not not not not, equal to white people right now. Black
people in america do not have it easy. Black people in america are not free of
discrimination. I am not, and have never argued that. Let me repeat that
because apparently people are getting confused about this. I am not arguing
that black people are equal. I am not not not not not not not arguing that,
because that is demonstrably untrue.
What I am arguing about is this, and again, please read carefully. At one time
black people would have their death notice printed in the local newspaper. It
would literally say a black person looked at this white woman, he is in this jail,
we'll be making a mob at midnight. For example, since I apparently have to
teach black history 101 here. The Tulsa riot in Tulsa oklahoma in 1925 was
started because a black man tripped in an elevator and his hand brushed
against the white female elevator operator. It led to over 300 black people being
massacred. There are accounts, written by white people, of them breaking into
black people's mansions in Tulsa, finding the families on their knees in the act of
praying, and gunning them down execution style. The plans for this were
written in the newspaper. It told where the man was being held, and said, in
black and white, that they should lynch him. It turned into a riot so bad that
white people literally got into their airplanes at a nearby base and dropped
firebombs onto the black neighborhoods. The military actually bombed black
citizens. No one was found guilty for that massacre. Tulsa's black population still
has not recovered. If you care to google something, instead of expecting me to
spoon feed it to you, there is a wonderful documentary on youtube with first
hand accounts. You can find it, its easy.
Do you honestly think that if the KKK, which still exists in america, tried to do
the same thing, that they'd be allowed to? Do you honestly think that a
newspaper could get away with printing an invitation to lynch a man? And I'm
not talking about the KKK Crusader here. I'm talking about the Tulsa Reporter,
or Tulsa Record I think it was called. Imagine the Chicago Chronicle or
something printing an invitation to lynch a black man. You don't think there
would be a response? You don't think some people would be fired, arrested and
imprisoned? Our nation is bad, but if you think its that bad, you're fooling
yourself, and you're letting your emotions get the better of you. Think rationally.
For example, there is a famous trial going on right now of a man who
massacred black people, using the same excuses that people did in the 20s
when they lynched people. He's probably going to be condemned to death. Look
up how long it took to get a white man condemned to death for killing a black
man, because if I tell you you won't believe me.
Yes, black people are treated far more harshly than any person should ever be
treated. yes, they are shot by the police at a rate that is far far far too high. But
they are not lynched in the streets at the behest of the local newspaper. If a
black person is lynched, there is an investigation. The government just passed
the Emmitt Till act which allows them to open previously closed civil rights
murder violations from the fifties and sixties and earlier. These are strides, and
compared to what happened in reconstruction, that would be the time between
1865 and 1877, those are some pretty damn big strides. They still, I repeat,
still, have a long way to go, but they have also come a long way. I don't know
how much more I can tell you without writing a damn book. If you want to know
more, read some civil rights history about lynching, or reconstruction. I'm
honestly tired of explaining this stuff over and over again. Have I made it clear
that I agree that black people are not equal yet? Has everyone read that? I do
not think black people have obtained equality yet, but they have made a lot of
progress towards it. Now can we please stop asking the same question over and
over again and ignoring the fact that I've answered it a dozen or more times
now? Read people, don't fly off the handle until you've read what I am actually
saying.
Now, to answer ramy's question, I mean in terms of advocacy, not rights. As
far as rights, I'd probably put us somewhere between 1963 and 1980, probably
closer to the 70s. We have the ADA, which can be compared somewhat to the
civil rights act, but its not really in force yet. We have to work on that. That's all
I meant. Does that clear it up a little? I should have been more specific.
Good points were made about equality and equal opportunity. Thank you for that distinction. I may have misread the meaning of the post to which I was responding as I certainly did not mean to imply that we should not be afforded equal opportunities. That is simply luticrus.
I also did not mean to give the impression that I think it is ok for people to simply give up on themselves as contributing members of society. Everyone has something he or she can contribute as well as an obligation to do something, anything. The challenge is helping those who do not realize their potential see that and find a way to demonstrate it.
And do you have an opinion on what the best mechanism for making them
see that is? Do you fall more toward the thrown to the wolves side, or the
pushed up the lader side, or into another camp? What are you thoughts?
The only thing I disagree with is the concept of equal opportunity.
It is impossible to have it as a blind person.
Even if given, the blind couldn’t use it to the full.
Suppose tomorrow law was passed to give us equal opportunity.
This would mean you can apply for a truck driving job and be equally looked at as an applicant.
The interviewer says, fine, we’ll give you a chance.
What now?
I will admit we are sometimes not given a chance because of human opinion, but that can be overcome.
The bottom line mainly is, we can’t perform the duties no matter what technology we have.
This makes the blind unequal despite human opinion.
Until you can become visual, you’ll always be limited.
Even if you were made visual, if you were blind from birth, this poses other issues.
A blind person can do things, we just don’t have the physical necessities.
Again, I am glad wiser minds realize this fact and help us to at least live with some dignity.
We need these specialized jobs, they are important.
Yes Cody, that clears it up. And it was a good overall post which I agree with personally. Black people still have a loooong way to go, even though things are certainly better than they used to be. I feel the same way about Women's rights personally. Honestly the whole gay rights, racial rights and women's rights stuff just makes me mad. I can't believe any of this is still a question. But it isn't just going to go away. Same with blind rights. Though of course while there are parallels, I personally haven't heard of too many blind people being openly murdered, enslaved, bullied or raped on a regular basis.
I just see so many excuses on this board, and I'm tired of other blind people coddling other blind people. This is frustrating, all we're doing is promoting people to sit at home all day. Dude, even if you got a home job, I'd be proud too. There's this woman who's selling stuffies with baby's names and 2017 on them, then she offers a name template or a pouch with a braille phrase on it for valentines day. I Applaud her tremendously, she's doing something. You don't have to get up and go to an office, but if you can do home steady work. whatever is good for you, whatever it takes to get off hell's ferris wheel we call SSI.
I know one woman who's on SSDI, she makes me so sick, she doesn't need it, she's just abusing it. She has no disabilities, not blind, not anything, she just claims to have multiple personalities. Sure I think she's crazy, illiterate, etc, but not with multiple personalities. People like her and people with no motivation, is the reason why we're going to run out of SSI real quickly here.
I'd like to add this. If you truly feel you want equality, you can always give up that pitness of money you receive each month and do what people do that can see.
It isn't forced on you. At any time you can simply say you don't want it.
Do you still want to be equal?
Ok, yes Wayne, technically you're right in that a blind person will never be
able to be a truck driver. But I have the perfect solution. Don't be a fucking
moron who applies to be a truck driver if you're totally blind. Learn to work
within your limitations like everyone else does. If one is blind, work jobs you
can do without sight. Don't complain that you can't do a job that requires sight.
Get one that doesn't require sight. The fact that you can't drive a truck or be a
brain surgeon or fly F18 fighter jets is just an excuse not to have those jobs, it
is not an excuse to have no job at all. If the argument we're having is over why
blind people can't be truck drivers, I'd be right there with you. But its not, its
why blind people don't have jobs. And, though I admit I don't know every job in
the world, I'm pretty sure truck driver and cop and fighter pilot don't make up
the entirety of the jobs available. I'm pretty sure there are others.
I never once said that African Americans have not made any strides to overcome their obstacles in their lives. However, to label these strides as being great is rather subjective and not objective. Something that is subjective or can be defined differently by other people can never be a fact. Anything that is subjective is nothing more than opinion.
You can site all the facts and statistics you want. However, once you claim these facts or statistics are considered to be great, or any other subjective adjective you would like to give them, you are placing your own opinion on these facts and statistics rather than allowing them to stand on their own.
So making claims that African Americans have made great strides over the years is simply an opinion. There is really no way to prove anything is great as we all have our own definition as to what we consider to be great.
Now we're just getting hung up on wording and opinion on said wording. Cat, the spirit of the claim might be more important than the letter. It's a pitty the persnickety petty party won't just peter out.
I understand that.
I'm just pointing out we can't be equal. It just isn't possible.
It depends how you look at it wayne. everyone has limitations, blind or
sighted. But I think being able to do every possible job is a rather pultry way to
measure equality.
I think having had an African-American president for the past eight years is a pretty significant stride forward, considering I was born in 1964, and many, many people would not have dreamed that a black man could've become president in say, 1990. Just sayin'.
We are speaking jobs here.
If you take the same educated blind person with a sighted person, the sighted person will have more opertunity based on the ability to see nothing more.
Sorry, this is just facts.
Yes wayne, but there's nothing we can do about that. We play the cards we
have, not the cards we wish we have. what we don't do is throw our cards down
in a huff because we didn't draw a royal flush.
Should have put this in my last post. Even a less educated person has more opertunity.
They can go wait tables, you can't.
Face it. the physical limitation will keep us from being equal.
Wayne, that view is self limiting. I am blind, I have excellent hearing and play the guitar well. My son accidentally cut one of his fingers off. He plays guitar also. Frankly, with his acquired disability, he cannot play as well as I do. So he and I our certainly not equal. I am superior even though I am blind and he is not. Some folks are not very smart. They can see, so, sure they can push a broom and do dishes. But, no matter how much they might want to, they will never be an attorney. There are many blind attorneys. Those blind attorneys could also push a broom, or do dishes, but they are smart and so are not limited to those jobs. Maybe they could not be waiters, but so what, they can push a broom, or do dishes, or be an attorney. You cannot base a judgment of equality solely on vision. That is myopic, excuse the pun. I'm sorry you feel you aren't equal. That must be a burden on you. I feel equal though. I lack some abilities, but I have other abilities that neither you, nor many sighted people have. It is all in your head my friend.
one question though, why we think that we should, or need to define by our blindness? We let blindness to define who we are, what kind of support we should or must have. What about, What have we contribute? how much have we contribute? nothing comes easy, sighted or blind, but there are some "blind" people mentality is that "because i'm blind, i'm always the worse off"...
And, yes, I do think there are some "blind" people out there that are lazy, that are unmotivated, that have too much time on their hands. Is SSI or similar making these type of people more reason to be stuck to where they are, without moving forward, trying harder, having comfortable enough life that they have no reason to want more?
I’m sure you understand what my point was.
You know I’m not speaking equal in ability. I am speaking equal in job opportunity.
Selection if that helps you.
No, I do not feel I am not an equal human.
I understand that That blind attorney can push a broom and wash dishes, but guess what, if he gets out of work, maybe loses his license to practice law for some reason, he’ll have a hell of a time finding a job just pushing a broom.
as far as work, and I am speaking only work opportunities, the blind is not equal.
You can sit over there and go you are equal all you want, but I can go drive a truck, cut lawns, drive a taxi, paint houses, do construction, work for the city sanitation department, and that list is long with vision.
Just being able to see opens my opportunities greatly over yours. It is just a fact and I’m happy wiser minds understand this and help the blind live with some dignity.
I’m an extremely handy guy. I can do many things even fully sighted guys can’t, or won’t learn to do.
What I’m not is unrealistic. I’m not going to insist and work on a major construction sight just because I can do carpentry well. Not only is it difficult, it be flat out dangerous. Not only to me, but my coworkers.
Do I have the ability? Damn right I do. Am I stupid to insist they let me work 6 series off the ground framing a building?
No.
I’ve done jobs in a support setting, and when I had more sight that aren’t regular things a blind person would do.
But read that again, with support, or a crew of seeing folks that were my support.
One of these was a professional house and office cleaner.
Maybe that sheds some light for you about what I think about equality.
Wayne, though I understand and partially agree with your point, I think it is a
dangerous one. No, you should probably not get a job washing windows on
skyscrapers. NO, you're not gonna be a rivet catcher, if they even still have rivet
catchers. However, the problem is in reducing that. A lot of people say that
because they cannot do one job in construction, that they can't do any jobs in
construction, which is absolutely wrong. I spent summers as a kid working
construction. Both my father and my grandfather owned construction
companies. My father owned a roofing company, still does as far as I know. My
job was to carry a package of shingles up the ladder and pile them on a
platform. when they had all the singles they needed, my job was to stack boxes
of nail rolls, staples, anything like that. When I wasn't working with my father, I
worked with my grandfather. I scraped paint off old houses with a hand scraper
because I was meticulous and worked fast. I worked on every floor of the house
inside and out. There was one time I had to crawl along a little catwalk-like
thing on my stomach to scrape paint off the outside of an attic dormer. So don't
tell me that a blind person can't work in construction.
with thinking like yours blind people have a tendency to think that because
they can't be at the pennacle, that they can't be anywhere on the ladder, and
that is absolutely untrue. HOnestly, the list of jobs blind people can do is a lot
longer than any of us think it is, me included. I still meet people who do things
that impress me. I know a blind girl who is a wilderness guide. She has slight
light perception but no usable vision, but she leads land and water-based
wilderness treks. she skis by herself cross country. I know a blind guy who goes
big game hunting all over north america; last time I talked to him he was
packing for a cougar hunt in Nevada if I remember correctly. With all that,
you're gonna tell me that a blind person can't be a hotel maid, or a janitor, or a
construction worker? That, to put it bluntly, is absolute bullshit.
No, it doesn't mean that we have every opportunity a sighted person does.
Yes, there are jobs we are never going to be able to do. but if you think that
means there aren't enough jobs for everyone in the blind community with the
desire to get one, you're absolutely wrong. And if you think that its a valid
excuse that you can't find a job because you can't be at the top of the ladder,
you're full of shit.
Stepping back in to say one thing, and one only.
Kat, the word "great" has two distinct meanings. It can refer to how good something is, or to how large or significant something is. Cody saying that African-Americans have made great strides is pretty clearly the latter case, and this is not a matter of opinion. Compare the plight of African-Americans from a hundred and fifty or so years ago, to the state they're in now. If you would agree that their progress has been significant, then the term "great strides" can very easily apply. It doesn't mean that all their troubles are over. It doesn't mean they don't have struggles yet to face. It also doesn't mean that everything they've done has been good/amazing/whatever other word you want to substitute for the other meaning of the word "great". But it does, historically speaking, mean that the strides were significant. This really isn't up for debate. Facts speak for themselves.
Now really and truly back to my anonymity. Surprised no one pointed out this hang-up earlier, honestly.
Long post. Skip to the end for the point!
I wonder how much cost of living in your area plays into one's willingness to live off of social security. Back home in Redneckville North Carolina, I could have lived comfortablely on SSI in my small home town. Would I have been so motivated to go find a job there? SSI would have met my needs nicely.
But I left NC and moved out to Colorado where even with my boyfriend's SSI, we just managed to make rent, food for us and the dogs, plus utilities and basic needs. I was always in plan mode on whether or not we could afford new shampoo or dish soap the next month. We didn't get new clothes, or furniture. Parents bought things for us.
I wanted more money. I felt like getting a job was the next and only logical step to my life after college. You work. It's what you do. After some truly awful interviews I'd rather not remember (tequila helps),
I got a part time tutoring job at the community college all on my own merit and steam. I was super annoyed that SSI kept deducting from my check with the pitiful money I was making. I went out and did additional freelance tutoring for more money. I needed money, but I really, really don't like talking to people. But money meant delivery food, and shampoo, and dish soap. Tutoring was something I was able to do, so I did it. but each month, I felt indignent that SSI was cutting my check. How dare they! I was trying my best to work! I was trying to get ahead here, and SSI wasn't helping. It was getting me nowhere.
I finally got up with DVR and am incredibly blessed to be working a full time job with good pay and benefits. I miss all the free time I had while living on SSI. I was more creative, a nicer person, less stressed out in certain ways. I took more care with the small details and appreciated things more. Now, I'm grumpy a lot and super tired when I get home. I spend the vast majority of my energy at work. But I like what I do, and it gives me enormous pride to tell people I work in human resources for the department of agriculture. I buy things for the parents now.
I think everyone needs something to do with their life. Maybe you work. Maybe you tutor. Maybe you take care of kids. Maybe you take care of your grandmother who really needs you. Maybe you volunteer with petting cats or bagging food at the local food bank. Maybe you write for a blog or are actually making progress on a novel. I absolutely don't understand sitting at home playing games all day. If your only disability is blindness, that's not an excuse to me. Get off the couch and go do something. I came from a dirt poor, uneducated family. I have a B.A in English paid for by the state of North Carolina. I battle anxiety with every new situation I'm in. But I still went out and carved a place for myself.
So when people ask me, "What do you do?" I have an answer I can be proud of. That's my TLDR here. Whatever you're doing, find a place where you can answer that question with pride.
Adding in that if the best I could do at the moment was making Lighthouse pens everyone hated, by God, I would get up and go make those pens. I might be looking for something better, but I could take pride in the transferrable skills, as someone previously said. I could take pride in making my own money at the very least. It would be something I earned with my own two hands, and there is so much value in that.
Brava, brava!
It's what I did for about nine months before I got my DOT rep job. Boxed gloves eight hours a day, and believe me, after several years out of work, it was a start. It felt good to be working again, and it proved I had a work ethic.
Thank you for clarifying that everyone else on this board topic is entitled to their opinion but me. It really does not matter if you use the word *great* or * significant* as you are still using a subjective adjective that is merely an opinion and not fact.
While I agree that African Americans have made some progress in overcoming the obstacles they face within society, I simply do not see this progress as being great or significant when African Americans face the highest rates of unemployment, are still being labeled as being lazy by sociologists studying poverty in the United States, and are still being segregated despite the fact that Jim Crow laws were demolished quite some time ago.
Now if you wish to disagree with me, then that is totally fine. But to say that I am somehow not entitled to my opinion simply because you happen to disagree with me, then perhaps you should not be entitled to your own opinion as well.
I like HauntedReverie
posts. perfectly said, exactly what I was trying to explain and I'm sure the others in agreeance are trying to say.
It shocks me that people can think that a job is beneath them, that they are worth more than a job said to make pens. If you are really worth more than that, why aren't you doing more than that? I also loved cody's post about construction work. It brings me fond memories of working with my dad, a jack of all trades he was. Do you think my dad went to school to learn electrical work, carpenting, painting, etc? heck no, he dropped out of at the tenth grade, my dad's very smart, sees how someone else does it and can do it too. HE uses the skills he has to work to his advantage, he's intelligent, a good talker and that's what people like. People like people who can relate.
Yes my dad is sighted, but do you think he would've gotten all his jobs if he didn't use what he knew and could use to his advantage?
I did also scrape paint off, lift up flooring with my hands and a tool, one I have no idea what it was lol, my dad just showed me out to lift it up. Anyways, if your good at writing, do something or find something that your good at concerning the subject. Did you know that websites will hire you if your good at lets say describing clothes? work from home, do something, it's not easy. But where do you think most people who live comfortable or extremely comfortable lives did? They worked their way to the top.
Here Cat. Watch this, if you don't want to watch all of it, skip to the two
minutes and 40 seconds mark. Then maybe you'll change your stance on the
facts since it won't be me disagreeing with you, it'll be Martin Luther King Dr.'s
daughter, or do you think she isn't educated enough on the civil rights struggles
to use the phrase great strides too? https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=wbg9DEThFWQ
Not dangerous Cody, realistic.
Sure, blind people can work in construction, however, if you are a handy, or skilled seeing person, you have more jobs you can do in the construction field.
That is just the facts.
No matter how much ability we have as far as construction work goes, we are not equal in that field, nor many others.
Motivation, ability do not make you equal, but are wonderful to have.
but you're not wayne, so what good does that realistically do for you to focus
on? If we spend all our time arguing about whether or not you can do
everything a perfectly skilled perfectly sighted person could, we're not telling
you to get up and get a fucking job. Therein lies the danger. A lot of people, not
specifically you mind you but some, will say that since they're not equal, why
try. They conflate not being able to get some jobs with not being able to get any
jobs. So, yeah, technically speaking, you're right, there are more opportunities
for sighted people. So fucking what? we can't even convince everyone to apply
for jobs as it is. Once we have every blind person ready and willing to work to
their capacity, then we can talk about the jobs we can't get into.
I think it is rather sad that I am not entitled to my own opinion in the same manner as anyone else on this board topic.
I am well-educated on the history of civil rights. However, I am also well-educated on what is happening in society today. So you can go ahead and quote all the facts and figures from the past as somehow being great all you want. However, these facts and figures as somehow being great does not change what is going on in society today.
If the strides African Americans have made within our society were as great as you claim, then I believe the status of African Americans would be higher than what it is today. Perhaps things are different where you live, but where I live, I see African Americans and other minorities facing the same struggles they have faced in the past. Perhaps the methods are different now, but in some ways they are still the same.
Now, if you wish to disagree with me then that is totally fine. But these personal attacks are starting to get a bit old. I have not put anyone else down for their opinions, so there is really no need for others to put me down because of my opinions.
Feel free to think of me however you wish. It really does not matter all that much to me considering the fact that no one on this website knows me personally. However, the condescending tone of this debate leaves me wondering if all atheists are as arrogant and condescending as Silverlightning.
Wow, that was an impressive stretch CAt. I think that belongs on the yoga
board. But, now that you've gotten that out, can we return to the actual subject
and stop with your pity party please?
Great stuff HauntedReverie. My approach is and always has been that it is better for me to earn perhaps little money, less money, than depending on system such as SSI. At least I can stand up tall and proud, and states my worth as a person, as a contributer, as a participant of society, as a tax paying citizen.
Back to Cody and Wayne's post, I think the problem is that the idea of realistic vs logic vs unmotivated. Take example, I know there are some motivational sessions in Australia, teaching high school students with disability to dream big, and to realizing their dreams without any concern or any reality check. Yes, in an equality world, this can be done, but however, we also need to consider our own ability, as a person with vision impaired, or person with disability. Some of my young blind peers have dream of being a nurse, a doctor, a truck driver, a train driver, etc. others who have physical disability want to be a physio therapist, occupational therapist, personal trainer etc. Well, to be honest, as a blind person myself, I will not allow any blind nurse to take my blood, to operate on me, to drive a truck, or a train at this stage, unless something in technology significantly change, whereby all these job does not need sights or vision to perform.
But, on another hand, blind people can do more job than simply have a job that is related to either telephone, computer, hand on massage, packaging, music related industry, or likewise. I think there are a lot of jobs or work out there that we can do, it is just the matter of looking at it beyond our own little box, and making it work for ourselves. I always believe, if there is a will, it can be done... But first, we need to be willing to work perhaps harder, smarter, than an average sighted person.
Crazy_cat I'm disappointed. Several atheists post on this board. Do you think it's fair to stereotype all of us based on one person's obnoxious behavior? Doesn't it frustrate you when sighted people assume you're similar to the worst example of a blind person they've ever met?
More like WhineyCat.
crazy_cat the consensis is that great strides have been made. While you are entitled to an opinion it doesn't mean it's correct. For a start you could find some hate crime numbers over decades for us proving no progress has been made as far as racism goes. Obvious racism and standards of living should probably be two seporat topics of discussion, but I'm not going to attempt to make comments on race relations and descrimination since it's not an area of expertese of mine. If it is an area of expertese of yours and there for we should value your opinion you need to do a lot better job of backing up your opinion with facts.
Please forgive me. I did not realize there were other atheists who were posting to this board topic, and I honestly wondered if that was the reason why Silverlighning is so condescending and arrogant. If I were in a position to be hiring people for employment, I would do my best not to hire someone like him. But it is nice that he is now willing to drop the argument. Sometimes it is better to just agree to disagree.
As for a blind person drawing blood, there really is no reason why a blind person could not do this job as you can usually feel the vain where you need to draw the blood. The only difficulty with this job would be the paperwork. However, most of the paperwork involved in the medical field is electronic. So if you could find a place that has a computer interface that could be made accessible with a screen reader or Braille display, a blind person could definitely do this job. Unfortunately, I do not believe most medical computer interfaces are currently accessible using a screen reader or a Braille display.
As for a blind person being a physical therapist, I do not understand why a blind person could not do this job either. Again, the biggest barrier would be finding a way to complete the paperwork. But providing physical therapy itself is something that a blind person could do. Once you are properly trained in body mechanics, it is rather easy to tell where there is tension and pain within the body simply by touching the body. And good communication skills can usually help you determine what is wrong with someone when it may be difficult to be able to tell just by touch alone.
I think one of the biggest barriers in blind people obtaining employment in the medical field is the fact that most people consider blindness as a disease that needs to be cured. Therefore, I believe it would be rather difficult to be treated as an equal in a place where you are expected by others to be the patient receiving services rather than someone who is providing these services to others.
Finally, I think it is rather interesting that people on this board topic keep telling me to drop the argument about African Americans when other people on here seem to keep this argument going. An opinion does not necessarily need to be correct in order for it to be an opinion as everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Cat, the reason I was so, as you say it, condescending about this subject is
because I literally have a degree in this subject. Do you have a degree in this
subject? Did you study under the writers of historical texts about this exact
subject? Cuz I did. Did you talk to Ambassador Andrew Young, King's right hand
man? Cuz I did. Is there a video of your mentor interviewing Andrew Young on
youtube? Cuz there is mine. Have you been invited to deliver a lecture on civil
rights at a respected university? Cuz I have. Have you given a speech on civil
rights to a historical panel? Cuz I have. This is not a casual interest for me. This
is not just something I took in high school and got an A in. This is something I
have dedicated years to, and continue to dedicate to. Can you say the same?
"Cuz" Can't you write out the complete word?
And btw, beeling a vein does not make it possible for a blind person to draw blood from it. You have to see that the blood is going into the syringe.And are squeamish sighted people going to want a totally blind person coming at them with needles? I doubt that.
Hmm, interesting. I thought I read that Silverlightning was interested in letting this go. Apparently not.
But it looks as though no one on here wants to agree with me about anything though. I would have absolutely no problem having a blind person draw my blood. As long as a person can find the vain with the needle, there should be no problem drawing out the blood.
Oh dear lord, get off the cross cAt, someone needs the wood.
Personally I'd be worried about them overshooting the vein. I've had that
happen, and it kills.
Greg, just as you say that you "don't judge" others, you are attaching things to me that you don't know anything about. You said that I'm not looking at all the facts, yet you know nothing of what I know and have lived. You assume that I'm being malicious and have no intension of being helpful, but you clearly don't know what I'm about. Because although I have a different way of conveying my points than you and I'm less willing to make excuses for people than you are, that doesn't mean that I'm a malicious person who's on here to attack people. For the record though, I don't do sympathy for anyone. That is, I don't feel sorry for anyone (including myself). Empathy though? Of course. People deserve consideration when they're genuinely trying to better themselves and they stop at nothing to succeed. Perhaps try asking questions next time you aren't clear on someone's point/intent though, rather than negatively judging when you yourself don't know the facts.
Voyager, you astound me with your saying that Lighthouse for the Blind jobs are equivalent to staying home all the time. Lighthouse jobs are not even close to sitting on your duff at home all day every day doing nothing. Aside from what others have already said to you about that, I will add this: Lighthouse jobs give people a purpose. Maybe you don't think they'd give you a purpose, and you'd be one of those people who wouldn't even try your hand at such a job, but believe me there are plenty of people who would work there. Believe me that there are plenty of people who have had crappy jobs (myself included) but that have found opportunities to grow within said jobs. Not just that, but when we get to the point where we want more for ourselves than we're currently achieving, we should want to do whatever we can to change that for the better. I did, and as I've said, I fail to see how others don't want that for themselves. Because here's the thing: when you have a purpose in life, when you are able to say that you *earned* your own money and can go out and buy that kickass stereo that you've been wanting for a while, that causes happiness. Working for money and then having an actual paycheck in-hand creates something tangible that sitting on your duff all day every day could never give you.
Okay Cody. Cat has made my point.
Drawing blood and you're blind?
Cody, sure, I understand you, but I think if the blind concentrate on what they can do we'll have more success stories.
When you go to college and study a field that is almost impossible, frustration sets in.
That's not good.
Let me add. The only reason I posted as I did, was someone stated we were equal.
I assumed they meant in the job market.
We are not, but we can make that not so bad if we try for jobs we can do, or that might be made accessible.
What bother me is this idea of doing what blind people do well in an open employment environment. Again, on one hand, we want to be a blind individual, we do not want to let the "blind community" to define who we are, but at the same time, we want to embrace to the "blind occupation".
Are we content enough with just gainful employment, but not meaningful employment?
Why we should settle for the less when there are more out there, waiting for us to discover, to embrace, to make it accessible?
Why we keep wanting things, but at the same time, letting others, to define what is accessible and what is not, or leaving the control to others as to making things to be accessible?
Again, I come back to the question, what have we done to contribute to the process beside complaining, whining, and asking for more entitlements and priveledges from society as a blind person?
Not a whole hell of a lot.
I'd agree with that, but we must be realistic.
Sometimes that meaningful means sitting on asses because it won't work.
Sometimes we need to eat, so we must work at what we can until we can do what we like.
Sometimes we can do both.
I've done what I had to do, and what I enjoyed par time.
I had some money, so I could setup my joy work.
That isn’t necessarily a blind thing though.
The sighted go through this.
I wonder what percentage of people in this world have meaningful jobs? like how many people actually find their jobs meaningful.
We have opportunities in most states in the united states to recieve a fre college tuition. I still know a handful of people who don't take advantage of it. IT's sad, if you want something meaningful why don't you continue in school?
I don't think people are trying to say aim for the lowest and that's it. Aim for what you can get and work up from it. How do you get anywhere if your nowhere?
I didn't want to get into the racial debate, but it amazes me how people can think we've not made any strides. I like the ombama comment, even my dad was shocked when people were ok with him running. My dad said it would've never had happened, now we need an mexican american to run lol. There are issues as far as officers work, but it's not just black people too.
It sickens me for exaple, that guy from the subway commercials, he had tons of evidence that he was a child molester. Pictures of him commiting these acts on children, porn on his computer, etc. He got 15 years.
South park mexican, Carlos, forget his last name, a chicano rapper was accused of child molestation. No evidence just one little girl's word, and he got 40 years in prison. But the guy who they really had proof on only got 15. What's the difference? One's white, one's mexican.
It drives me nuts when black people only concern themselves with their problems, your not the only one who's struggling. America is changing, gays can marry, black people can walk and own their own. Black's aren't slaves, blacks aren't barred from an education. We're not a perfect society, but who the hell is?
and sorry but how are you supposed to draw blood as a blind person? It's not like you can see the vial and see if it's full. Or how would you measure out a measurement of blood? Even sighted people make mistakes on hitting the vein. But I feel a sighted person has a better chance than a blind person. No thanks. and what about MRI's? Blind people can't do that. Admittedly there isn't much we can do in the medical field.
No one is advocating that we all become lab techs, as far as I can tell. Saying that we *can* become lab techs though, is very different. I wouldn't want a blind person drawing my blood, but if someone feels differently, more power to 'em.
Crazy cat? Wtf are you smoking? I know black attorneys, nurse practitioners, math
teachers, school principals, doctors, judges, police chiefs...
And for a long time, blacks could not do any of this stuff. Oh, and guess what??? They
worked for their careers, and didn't let their skin color hold them back.
Now go check those facts, and its 2017
I have many mixed opinions about the subject of this board.
that being said, I'm honestly curious how anyone's opinions about religion factor into this conversation at all. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that they *gasp* don't.
I would have a little more understanding, though not much, if someone was formerly using religion to make a point. Instead the word Atheist was brandished about like an insult, ineffective as it is.
I guess you felt that's the best you could do when Cody told you he had a degree in history, and has focused extensively on the subject?
It failed to help your argument, or make you look any better though.
So, just for the future... What are your religious leanings, and are we atheists free to use them to attack you when nothing about the subject relates to them?
Well, for you medical nay sayers, I'd only point out that there actually are blind doctors. Since learning to draw blood is paart of the basic training for a doctor, it must be possible eh? My daughter, who is a registered nurse, has told me that taking blood is done mostly by feel, not vision. She is sighted. I have also personally interviewed a blind Emergency Medical Technician. He explained to me, and showed me, that virtually every observational skill normally done by vision can be duplicated using other methods. Just because you cannot imagine it does not make it impossible. You are falling into the same prejudice so many of your sighted piers do.
I don’t think I’m falling in to any prejudice as my sighted piers do.
Just like anything else, I’d need to see and know we have lots of blind doctors/nurses.
I am almost positive we have some that wish to go through medical school. Can I ask, where are they?
Why aren’t they succeeding in some numbers, and I mean more then say 5?
This concept that the blind has no limitations and a do anything is really mis guided, but I do understand why that idea exist.
I do know the blind can work in the medical field, but only as specific types doctors. Psychiatry comes to mind.
Some nursing jobs could be held, as well I can theoretically understand too.
I’m not going to let you take my blood, nor fly me anyplace in your private plane, but that’s just me. Laughing.
Despite all this I, as a blind person feel I’m not prejudice when I state my realistic viewpoint.
I say to any blind person, if you believe you’ve got the grit, and I mean to work in any field, get out there and prove it. But, do it with some sense of reality attached.
Alright, I kind of backed off for a whjile, but I have been watching this post, and I want to touch on a little things. Long post so be warned.
Cat, I believe you have totally missed the point of this post, and have made it about you, and how much you know about civil rights. As a blind person, and as a black person, I can personally attest to the fact that while the world is still not color blind, we have it so so so much better now than my generations before me. Before my grate grand parets and some of my grand parents passed, they used to sit me down and tell me all of these stories about what they have faced. Skipping the long explination of what that is, I still face discrimination from my skin color, and from my blindness today, but what I deal with is nothing in comparison. So keep thinking you know what you know. And nothing on this board is a personal attack on you or what you think. But you need to realize that if you believe what you want, and are free to post it, then people are free to argue it or post what they want. So please, quit making it about you. No one is attacking you, we are just trying to have a dialog here. Keep on topic or get out if you don’’t like it, its as simple as that. Now, on to the topic at hand. When I was in highschool, my parents got my Social Secuyrity to help pay for things like food, sports in school, clothing, what ever. But when I graduated and went to college, They gave it to me to live on, as the state would only pay for part of my schooling. I had to use the skills I already had to make money, and so I built and sold gaming computers on the side to help pay for school. I didn’t like doing it because it was a lot of work for the money I made, but I had to do it. When I graduated with my degree in computer engineering, I went out for interviews, and so so so many people told me they didn’t want to higher a blind engineer. That really hit my pride in the face, and so I backed off for a little while, went to LCB to get training, and came back to try again. I then worked in a Factory making pins, LED lights, stuff like that. I didn’t feel like I was living up to everything I could be, but I was making money I worked for. After hundreds of applications, connecting on linked in, going to job fairs, and just talking to people through friends and family, I heard about this team over at the department of defense that was highering so I applied, and now here I am two years in. My point is, did I think I could do better than making pins? Yes the hell I did. Was it the only choice I had at the time, yes so I took it. I don’t like handouts. My parents raised me to make my own way, not have someone else do it for me, and I don’t understand how people who have choices could take the easy way out if they could do something that could lead to a better life for themselves. So me who has been denied over and over for jobs I was mor than ready for, me who had to sit doing the same thing over and over to spite my years of hard ass schooling, dealing with disablilty services not accomidating me properly in college, and being put down for years, I wanted better for myself. It was a choice I made. It was not a fight in my head, it was simple. I wanted a good life, or I wanted to live on a fixed income for ever, not being able to save any meaningful amount of money less the government take it away, only being able to live in okay or bad parts of town, not being able to buy things I want, or living a life that I can be proud of that doesn’t take place on my couch with a computer that the government most likely paid for.
That's a great post, Liquid. Pasco, I'd love to know those who are blind in the medical profession do what they do. I admit to being surprised by this. But then, while we need to be realistic, that realism is only reached by trying. These days there are ways around lots of sighted r5oadblocks. I myself have been somewhat interested in going into physio theropy or massage theropy, and I'm curious why there is such a negative stigma in the blind community towards those of us who pursue that profession? That's a real question and I want to know the answer. Of course, I'd also love to be a fiction writer, a sound designer, a voice actor or get into computers, so who knows where I'll end up.
I wasn't really aware of any stigma against massage therapy in the blind
community. I think I remember reading that it was the most common job for a
blind person, but I could be imagining that. I do know totally blind massage
therapists however. I spent the day with one just yesterday. I can think of a few
on this site.
Here's my thing with medical people in the blind community. I think that, in
order to say that you can do a job, you have to be able to do it at the most
basic version when it involves other people's lives. So like, if you can't use a
computer without a screen reader, that's ok, cuz no one is going to die. If you
are a doctor, you have to be able to do that without the advent of medical
technology. maybe not for everything, but you should be able to keep people
alive. I can't imagine how a blind person could do something like that without
the advent of advanced technology. The blind man who made it through medical
school, for example, has to have a special computer program to use a basic
machine. That seems irresponsible to me, and if anything happened to one of
his patients, I don't think he would stand a chance in court. I don't think our
desire to be equal should come at the expense of someone's well being.
Thank you for your last post Cody. You said what many of us are probably thinking, but could not have articulated so well.
I wouldn't say it is a stigma against blind massage therapy, more so a stereotype. Just like some other trade, e.g. Musician, usually, if you are blind, and if you are artistic, people will definitely associate you as a blind musician, rather than other art form. There are also other occupation as well, such as physio therapy, telephone operator, telephone sales rep, telephone customer service rep, well, you get the idea. In fact, in China, clinical massage and phisio therapy is reserve for for vision impaired and blind people only.
There are some occupation that you can do alongside with medical doctor, such as medical translator or such. Although, with the advance in technology, i don't think medical translator is as common as what it use to be, back in the 80s or 90s.
This statement is specific to programming as a job. Why would I want to see a blind person list work experience in a sheltered workshop on a resume instead of actually teaching them selves new technologies? I'd much rather hire someone who spent a year on SSI but worked eight hours a day teaching them selves new technology outside of what they learned in university and can prove it with open source. This assumes that the added financial benefits of working in a sheltered workshop are small enough as to not meaningfully enhance quality of life, but I don't know if this is the case.
there is more to a CV than what jobs you had. Yeah, if you have never worked
with computers, you need that, and a sheltered workshop will not give you that.
However, if you are applying to an office job, you can say that you work with
people well, you follow instructions well, you have experience filling orders
accurately, things like that. Its putting lipstick on a pig, but that's what CV's are
for.
Since quitting the law, getting divorced and generally getting my act back together, I’ll admit there have been several philosophical questions I’ve been struggling with. Like the term “meaningful employment.” I’ve gotta say that the term for me is a lot more loosely defined than it used to be. And mind you, I’m just speaking for myself and presenting my own thoughts here. But it seems to me that meaningful employment is sometimes, first and foremost, what will either pay the bills or help you pay those bills. If making those pens, boxing those gloves or sewing those pajamas for veterans or whomever the hell they’re meant for is the only thing you can get at that particular time, versus staying at home and doing nothing, I’ll make those pens, box those gloves or sew those pajamas. Are those jobs mainly reserved for blind people? Yes, but at the time I was boxing the gloves, I was also working around sighted people whose only option at that time was a minimum wage job. And either it was because they were limited in English or somehow limited in circumstance. Maybe it was their own making, like myself, or maybe something else happened that forced them to start over or do what they’re doing. I dunno. Point for me was that I needed the money to pay rent because I’d moved back home and promised that’s what I’d do. Now, I’m working at the DOT, mmostly doing telephone and computer work. Again, a stereotypically blind occupation, but again, a lot of my coworkers are fully sighted. But I got that job both because I knew people, and because I showed my willingness to start at the bottom, demonstrate a work ethic and do what needed to be done at the time. Is it “meaningful” the way a legal job is supposed to be? No, but it’s meaningful because it pays the bills, is relatively low in stress and pretty much allows me to do what I want. Perhaps those are pretty shallow goals, but of all the lawyers I worked with when I was one of those, most of them wanted to be judges. Guess what? Most of them never got there. I’d say most of the current senators, representatives and governors probably think of themselves as the next president. But guess what? There are something over 300 million people in this country, and ain’t very many of us are ever gunna be president because there’ve only been 44 of those in our entire history, including Trump. Most of us are relatively average human beings, both blind or sighted. Should we strive for something more? Sure, I suppose we should, but I think that means each of us has to define it in our own terms. Not every governor, senator or congressperson wants to be president, much less has the stamina or intelligence to be president, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, because somebody has to be governor, senator or representative. Not every doctor can be a world-famous neurosurgeon. That’s fine. All I want right now is a good general practitioner, and we need those as much as we need the world-famous neurosurgeons. A friend of mine seriously wants me to get back into the legal profession, says it’s a loss that I’ve decided never, never, never again to do it. Says it’s in my DNA. But I don’t have the stomach for it. I don’t want the stress. I’ve been out of it for too long, and when I was an attorney, for some unknown reason my mind never really got the message somehow that I was an attorney. I just did the job, hated every minute of it and tried my damnedest to get out,, sometimes with pretty disastrous results. I generally don’t like lawyers as a species, so why would I want to be one of them?
As for that government check, yes it’s pretty clear-cut to me that if you stay home and do nothing and that’s all you aspire to do, in my mind you’re a pretty pathetic individual if blindness is your only cross to bear. SSI,, in that regard, is a trap because if you make too much or keep too much money in the bank, you’re fried. SSDI, though, is a different kettle of fish altogether, and I admit, as I have done in the past, that I still get those while working at the same time. The good news with SSDI is that you’re not as limited because you can keep as much money in the bank as you want even though you’re limited in how much take-home pay you can get. But if you maximize those benefits and if those benefits and your paycheck are large enough, you can do pretty damned well. I know because I do it all the time, and it’s helped me get back on my feet again. In that regard I guess I’m pretty lucky that the SSDI check is so large. But that leads to some pretty serious philosophical struggles all of a sudden. Because between the SSDI and the paychecks, I’m taking home as mmuch now as I did when I was an attorney. My sighted counterparts don’t have that option. In that respect I’ve got it easy. In fact, I’ve got more money now than I’ve had in a long time, especially now that I’ve made full amends to my ex. The way I’ve got it figured, I’ll be completely debt-free toward the end of 2018, or possibly early 2019, thanks to the two checks I get. But then, what kind of a trap am I falling into by continuing down the road I’m on now? Am I taking more advantage of the system than other people can, ironically enough because they’re not blind or disabled? Can I justify doing so by the fact that I’m using one of those checks as a tool, and besides, it’s not as though I can drive a taxi or work at Starbucks if I lose the job I’m at now? After all, I’m still paying into the system and paying taxes. I’m not staying home doing nothing, playing computer games all day. But the refrain keeps popping up in my brain every now and then: Yeah, but you’ve got it this good because there are laws and policies in place right now that perhaps give you more advantages than other people have. So, it’s not a total hand-out, but then, maybe it’s its own brand of unfairness? I dunno.
I won't consider working on a sheltered workshop as a job or employment to start with. sheltered workshop was design in such a way that they act as a daily activity program for people with disability, but they are not suppose to replace an open employment job, unless that person have multiple complex disability, where their only choice to keep them out of trouble and keep them having some sort of activity, if you can consider sheltered workshop as an activity is to work at sheltered workshop.
If you are getting off your ass and working for money, good. if not, and you don't have a good rteason not to other than you don't think you should or don't feel like it, you suck. too bad.
Some sheltered jobs aren't necessarily workshops.
We have jobs the blind do that were setup for that reason that are like office jobs.
Not many, but we do have them.
On the doctor, Cody, you said it best.
Ability to do something, and doing it safely are different.
I can drive, ride a motor cycle.
Should I?
Want a ride?
Laughing.
For those who say Lighthouse for the Blind jobs aren't jobs: if that is true, what the hell do you call it if it's not a job, when it brings in money that people work hard to earn? If not a job, what is it then?
Agreed.
LTE, I agree with you actually. And the one thing I can pride myself on is that I have a very strong work ethic. It saps one's confidence not to be working, which is why I don't begrudge people working as I did for those months if they're starting over and attempting to get themselves back on their feet again. The more that I think about it, I suppose maybe I'm meditating a bit too much on the advantages I have now because as long as I'm using the tools I have in a positive way, I'm golden. I'll probably go back and forth a few times, but I think that generally I'm on the right track.
Who are you to judge if someone can do something safely? The tests one has to pass to become a doctor are way more relevant than your uninformed prejudice. And, yes it is a prejudice. It is that kind of attitude displayed by those who control our futures that hold us back so often. quoting You obvious cannot do that because you are blind. Give me a break! Realistic? For you perhaps, not for everyone. Many pioneers over come great hurdles to achieve. Is it worth it? Of course it is.
I have done a lot of things that people don't think blind people could or should do safely. But being a person who likes pushing past the norm, I would never let a totally blind doctor near me for anything other than a general diagnoses
Fine Pasco. The next time you need surgery find a blind surgeon.
You can be a pioneer for us all.
Me, I'll allow a blind shrink to examine why I'm prejudice.
Forereel, why do you think I shouldn’t perform open heart surgery?
Perhaps you have prejudice deep within your phycological makeup. I could cure you of this.
If treatment is successful, you will no longer be holding the blind doctor back with your backwards ideas.
Laughing.
Sorry, just had to.
need work done on your brain? its cool, don't need to see to get that done
sir, can you take a look at this rash for me? what is it? what do you mean you can't tell. this is your job
I'm honestly not even going to dignify pascow with a response here.
I have seen some really educated and formulated posts from that person, but that one? I ain't able
All I will say is, I'm glad I am no longer parroting the things that pasco is, regarding blind people being doctors. Just because blind people *can* be doctors in some people's opinions, doesn't mean they *should* be doctors. There is no question in anyone's mind I don't think, that we should strive to do what we can with whatever tools we have available to us. Where many of our problems lie, is with the fact that some people apparently place being able to be super blind person and prove to everyone what they *can* do, over the safety, health and well-being of others. Nope, not happening on my dime or on my lifetime.
I meant *in* my lifetime. Sorry for the typo.
"Hey driver, don't you see me trying to cross the road!!!"
Truck driver: "oh oh, don't you know i'm blind? you should watch where you going!!! dumb woman!!!"
You guys kill me. LOL I never said anything about being a sergeon. In fact, the particular doctor I'm speaking of is a psychiatrist. However, he still had to go through medical school. And yes, you are all showing prejudice to a degree shocking to me. Obviously, if a doctor is certified properly, he can do the job. The EMT I spoke with showed me how it is done. He is also certified. But all that aside, your combined reactions, with little or no actual knowledge of the situation, are stunning. You would doubt your fellow blind persons just as sighted people do? Disgusting. I had hoped from better from this group. Laughing.
I would hope that you would have a better understanding of capabilities over pride, and you are showing a lot of pride.
Exactly right, LTE. Very well said.
We are blind, people have put us down, and we want to be equal. But we don't need to fool ourselves into thinking we can do things that we simply cant. We are limited, that's just the fucking truth about it, and the sooner you realize it, the sooner you can understand and face the fact that we won't be able to do any job we want.
I tell you what pascow, I'll agree with you the minute you let a totally blind
person fly you to florida by themselves. Deal?
I actually agree with Pasco here.
If you guys have met blind doctors, and they have consistently prooved incompitent, every single one of them then yes, maybe you have a point.
I haven't, so it's not my job to decide whether they, people who have worked to get qualified, are fit to do that job.
See what I'm getting at? They qualified. Now, as we know from sighted people, that doesn't mean they are great at a job just because they qualified, but it does mean that people in higher up positions thought it could be possible.
And someone, somewhere always has to be the first.
You're judging someone, in a field in which you do not work, and I'm going to assume, based on what I know about the fields you all study, do not have expertees. Ultimately you are doing exactly what others do to you.
Now, I'm not going to qualify as a truck driver. But given time, dedication and thought there may be fields I could qualify in, and become the first blind person to do so. Isn't that what we should all be working towards? It's not about saying blind people can do every single thing, and if you actually read Pasco's post he didn't say that, it's about working out if you, the blind individual can make it happen. Maybe you try, and you don't succeed. That's ok, it wasn't your time yet. But there are people who try, people who look at a field in which blind people don't work and they think they can make it possible. An some of them do.
I don't really care if the rest of you think a blind person can be a doctor, beyond this post. If that blind person goes to university, studies and prooves themselves I think that should speak for itself.
Pioneer airlines?
Laughing.
I would agree with you Holly, except for one thing. If we try to, say, become
an architect, and we fail, all that happens is that we knock over some block
buildings; though I'm sure architect is a job we could do but you get what I'm
saying. If we try to be a nurse, and fail, someone could actually die, or at the
least be injured. Now, yes, I'm judging, I admit that. I'm judging in the same
way that I don't think a person with parkinson's disease should be a surgeon, or
a person in a wheelchair should be a firefighter. Could they perform all the
tasks, maybe, but the question is competency. My point is this, if I walked in to
a hospital tomorrow, and the person who said they were going to stick a needle
in my arm had no vision, I'd ask for a different person to do it. I asked my
mother, who has had ample experience with the capabilities of blind people,
having raised me from birth, and has been a nurse even longer than that, if she
would get a shot from a blind person, and she said no. So I'll take her word.
yeah, its all well and good to think that we should work to our potential, but
we should work to our realistic potential. Sorry, but the second grade me who
wanted to be a pilot was being unrealistic, adorable, but unrealistic. Its simply
not going to happen. Blind people aren't going to be snipers, jet fighters, brain
surgeons and a bunch of other things. And that's ok. There are lots of other
things we can do. You wanna help people, you can find a way to do it.
So, to support my claim, I asked my mother what is a basic thing a nurse has
to do that requires sight. she named two things off the top of her head. Now,
she admitted that she feels for veins instead of looking for them, but these two
things were examples of things that I could not even think of a way to do
without sight. Thing one: in order to chart someone, which is a basic duty of a
nurse, you have to describe the wound. Is it a broken bone with yellow and
green bruising? Is it a rash with scarlet pustules surrounded by neon blue rings?
Is it patches of white skin? These are things you can't find out if you can't see
the wound. You can't take a color identifier into the exam room and ask it to tell
you what color the pus is. You can't ask the patient, because they aren't a
nurse, you are. They might tell you its pus, and its white, but what kind of pus,
what kind of white, how are you going to write that down? You can't write "I
observed blah blah blah", because you didn't observe it, the patient complained
of it, and that is a different line on the chart.
Thing two: swabbing. If you go into the hospital complaining of a sore throat,
the nurse is going to have you open wide and say ah, and they are going to
poke a little light into your mouth. They're looking for little white patches on the
very back of your throat. They're then going to take a very very long swab and
poke those patches to get them to pop and release pus. How are you going to
do this as a blind person? You gonna remove the person's jaw so that you can
feel the back of their throat and hope that strep has a texture? You gonna ask
someone else to do it? You just gonna poke them in hopes you got the one spot
that has streptococus on it?
So no, I'm sorry, but there are still some things in this world that require
sight. Not many, and certainly not as many as people think, but some. The fact
that we are more capable than given credit for, does not mean that we are as
capable as a sighted person. We haven't reached that stage yet. Saying
differently is just being unrealistically pie-eyed.
Your going to have someone with site describe everything to you. This means you can't do the job as a doctor with out major help but no one cares because your just getting through your residency before becoming a research doctor where you don't have to deal with pacients. At least this is my understanding of a lot of totally blind doctors.
OK dipshits, I don't have to be a doctor to know that being a doctor is an unrealistic goal for blind people, just as I don't have to have driven a car to know that there's a hell of a lot about driving cars that I don't know because I've never driven a car, as a sighted person has. It's one thing to believe in oneself, and of course people wanna encourage that (myself included( but in being encouraging to others, it's best to be realistic, not far-fetched. Because like has been said, if there are tons of blind doctors, why aren't they here posting to topics like this one? Why don't we hear about them in the news? There's a reason that sighted people don't talk about blind doctors in the news and it's because they likely understand that blind people just cannot be doctors the way sighted people can be.
I think Holly said it well. I'm sure glad none of you had to approve the field I chose away back. Oh wait, maybe it was you. You said it was not possible for a blind person. Thing is, you were wrong and a couple of more creative people agreed with me and believed and so I had a very successful career in a field, that at the time, was considered impossible. Now, lots of blind people do it though it is still not common. As far as medicine, there is a lot of specialization. Not all doctors are sergeons. Not all nurses work in operating rooms, or ER's. You take extremes to illustrate your point which says to me you are more interested in your belief than learning the facts. Particularly in your case Cody, that surprises me considering your pointing out that in others so often. I was not being unrealistic, I was presenting facts. AS far as blind people in general, sure being realistic is important. But who decides what is and what is not realistic? Some people have to dream and perhaps fail, but perhaps succeed. Pointing out extremes like flying playnes does not advance the discussion. But, you obviously will not be swayed by facts, so I will rest my case here.
Not all doctors may work as surgeons or in the operating room, but they do
have to go through residency, which involves making rounds for a year or more,
spending time in each major department of the hospital so they have exposure
to different patients with different ailments, and applying what was learned in
the books to real life situations.
The psychiatrist mentioned in some post back actually didn't do the nitty-gritty
stuff in the operating room as I understand it, just stood there and held
incisions open for hours on end with retractors so the surgeon could do what
needed to be done, inserted the breathing tube, (probably removed it too, but
he didn't say), and so on. He also had experience delivering babies during his
residency.
I'd love to get in contact with him to find out more details, but as he is
ridiculously busy with patients and research after getting his PHD, I doubt he
would have the time to speak directly to anyone who is both blind and
interested in going into some specific specialty in medicine.icine.
sorry about the typo at the end of the last post. Not used to posting replies and
such on the Mac because of the positioning of the cursor, but it's getting better.
Wow! It looks like this board topic continues on despite the lack of my presence on it.
I believe understanding the historical context of something can provide important information in regards to being able to understand something. However, I also believe understanding the history of something without examining the current situation of something can make it more difficult to fully understand something. I am not comparing the status of African Americans to what it may have been in the past. I am simply looking at the way things are right now, and what I observe and read from other academic researchers is a lot of discrimination, segregation, and inequality.
As for blind people working in the medical profession, I still believe a blind person is capable of being a Phlebotomists. This is a very specific position within the medical field. The only thing a Phlebotomists does is draw blood for various reasons such as preforming medical tests and collecting blood donations. They do not perform any medical tests, examine patients, or determine any diagnosis for patients. The only thing they do is collect blood.
Every time I have had my blood drawn, the person taking the blood always feels my arm as a means to help locate the vain. So it seems to me like a blind person could find alternative ways to be able to confidently perform this job. Many blind diabetics use needles to test blood sugar and inject insulin. Therefore, the argument that blind people cannot successfully use needles does not appear to be a good argument to me.
As for being able to determine when a vial of blood has enough blood in it, it seems as though there would be a way for a blind person to be able to determine this as well. I believe there are only two different sizes of vials that are commonly used for medical tests. I also believe the amount of blood contained in the vial does not necessarily need to be exactly precise as long as there is enough blood in the vial to perform the medical tests.
The vial will only hold a certain amount of blood. You can determine how fast the blood flows into the vial by measuring the heart rate before drawing the blood. Using these numbers, you could then use a mathematical formula that would indicate how much time it would take to fill the vial with blood. You could then simply keep track of the time to determine when the vial blood would be full rather than watching the vial fill up with blood. Seems rather simple to me.
However, I also agree with those of you claim that simply because a person passes the credentials to become a doctor does not necessarily mean this person actually makes a good doctor. However, I believe this is true regardless of who the person may be, and does not depend on whether or not a person is blind or sighted. Simply because a doctor has sight does not necessarily mean he or she will notice something visually or consider what they see to be important. I know this to be true because it has happened to me.
Newsflash: just because something *seems* like it would be possible, doesn't mean it is because *seems possible* is very different than saying *is definitely possible*. Just wanted to point that out, because words are crucial in this type of discussion.
Also blind diabetics , or sighted don't need to shoot the meds in to a vain.
But pasco, if you're going to argue that blind people are not realistically
limited, there are no extremes. The difference you're failing to grasp is that we,
or at least I, am not arguing that a blind person can't go through medical
school. I know blind people myself who have done it. What I am arguing is that
they aren't going to end up in an operating room afterward. They'll be in an
office, or a research lab, or something of that nature. A blind person can
probably go through nursing school, but they aren't gonna end up working the
crash unit at LA general. A blind person may very well be able to finish flight
school with some help, but they aren't gonna be catapulting FA18 superhornets
off the Abraham Lincoln's flight deck.
There are always limitations we have to simply accept for the moment. For
example of a more personal type, I'd love to be able to work with ancient
documents. I'd love to go to a library, take a document that was written in the
centuries BCE and read what it says. But I can't, because they're not accessible,
and its very very difficult to scan them because of how fragile they are. Now,
the technology of scanning is progressing all the time, and some of those
documents are now digitized. So this is not a limitation that is going to be
around forever, but it is one I have to accept now. Even though I have historical
training, there are jobs I can't do. That's my argument.
If a blind person is going through medical school so they can become a
psychologies or psychiatrist, or if they're going through EMT training for, as an
article I read about one said, that if he's at a convention and someone collapses
he can help save them until the ambulance arrives, that's great. That's working
within realistic limits. But if they're going to medical school so that they can
become a heart surgeon, they're being unrealistic.
Well put Cody. That's where I'm coming from as well.
Just to give a personal example for myself: I'm waiting to get into a school that will train me in customer service, call center work and at the end of the program, will provide a guaranteed job interview with a well-known company.
I brought this up because I was talking with a friend the other day about the fact I wanna purchase a professional-looking business suit or two beforehand, because I realize that as someone who has multiple disabilities, that's what would strongly communicate to the person or people interviewing me that I'm serious about wanting to do this, and I'm confident in myself. I also know that as a woman, I may get hired because of my looks--I know I look great, so I believe it's an advantage for me to know the things are true that I just mentioned and then use them as the tools that they can be.
Well, if I had listened to my friend who said no one wears a suit anymore, so I shouldn't wear one, I believe I would be doing myself a huge disservice. Because whether I like it or not, the world as a whole absolutely *does* judge me on my appearance, which is first and formost my visible disabilities. So anyway, I say all that to give a personal example of the fact we as blind people do have limitations, or in my case, things that visibly will either make us or break us, depending on how we carry ourselves.
Yeah, your friend is full of crap Chelsea. Get a suit, get a few suits, and learn
how to put them on correctly. Get them tailored too. Wearing a badly fitting suit
is worse than not wearing a suit at all.
I posted that story because I'm not listening to that friend. Also, I feel it's relevant to what we're discussing here.
I do not see anything that would make it impossible for a blind person to become a Phlebotomists. The most difficult aspect of this job would be filling out the paperwork if the computer system was not accessible. Sighted people already use touch as a means to locate the vain. Remaining in contact with the vain throughout the process may actually improve the process as a person cannot tell by sight when the vain jumps or moves when inserting the needle.
If a blind person was trained and certified to perform this job, I would have no problem having a blind person draw my blood. Simply because you believe this job is impossible for a blind person to do, it does not automatically mean this job is actually impossible for a blind person to do.
I am sure there are some people out there who believe blind people cannot become customer service representatives because people use sight to operate telephones and enter data into a computer. However, blind people have been able to devise other techniques to perform these tasks. And it seems to me that a blind person could easily to devise alternative techniques to perform the tasks of a Phlebotomists.
I feel like one of the biggest barriers that exist for blind people obtaining employment is convincing others that they are capable of being able to perform the job. It appears as though this is even a barrier within the blindness community as well. Even though I have propose a couple of alternative techniques for a blind person to become a Phlebotomists, many of you would not want a blind person to draw your blood even if they were properly trained and certified to do this job.
Just FYI, if you are talking about one phlebotomist, that word should be singular, not plural. Also, why are you repeating yourself on every post to this topic that you make, crazy cat?
And, to add to that, digging deep into one subject to find a singular example
of something a blind person could do in a given field is called grasping at
straws. You may be right, but the fact that you have to scramble so much to
find an example means that your argument is weak at best.
LOL I do see weak arguments here, but they are not Kat's.
I note you still haven't taken me up on that deal Pasco. Come on, if blind
people aren't limited, you should be perfectly willing to let one fly you to florida.
Please forgive me for my minor spelling errors. I am not repeating myself any more than everyone else who does not agree with me. And I assure you there was no scrambling involved in coming up with this example. I overheard someone talking about it on the bus one day, and thought it was something I might be able to do. The fact that most of you believe a blind person should not be allowed to do this job or would not allow a blind person to draw your blood really says a lot about why blind peple have such a difficult time securing employment.
It is interesting someone told you people don't wear suits anymore.
Women wear suits and really beautiful suits.
Pants, or a skirt type look great.
Maybe they are thinking how some jobs don't require people to dress, and many top tech CEO's are wearing whatever they like.
However, at the interview stage, wear a suit, or dress, skirt and blouse to impress.
When you feel like you look good, you also give off the sense you are confident.
Just my $ 02 on that one.
LOL. Blind people are to blame for society's disbelief in us? Maybe those who say such things are. After all, those are the unrealistic people who like walking around saying that blind people can do everything that sighted people can. "Hey hey hey, look at me, I'm Superblind!!! I know you've heard of Superman, but I'm better!!! I'm Superblind!!! You in society must accept this fact or else!!"
I decided to bounce back in here, and will probably hop back out again too.
So, blind doctors.
Bill has a point, in that it is possible to be a blind GP. You aren't going to be a neurosurgeon, you aren't going to be an ER nurse, but it's possible to be a perfectly competent blind GP. Ever notice how in a GP's office, they usually have a nurse who draws blood, writes stuff, takes blood pressure and all that jazz? Yeah, that's why. The GP makes conclusions, writes prescriptions, and is capable of giving injections and doing other stuff as well. If you're blind, you have your nurse swab a patient's throat, or you have a nurse describe to you the wound. They can do that. They're medical and they know what to tell you. Then you, as the doctor, get to decide what to do about it.
Those of you who wouldn't let a blind doctor give you a needle are doing exactly what Bill says you're doing. You're judging, and you're ignorant in the bargain. I have never actually had the opportunity to be given an injection by someone who's blind, but if I knew they'd made it through medical school, I'd, y'know, kinda trust them, maybe, to not wound or kill me with a needle. I suppose it is possible for someone truly incompetent to slip through the system, but have any of you got any idea how gruelling med school is? How much it demands of its students? By the time you're done, you've been put through the wringer. This I have from several people I've talked to. It stands to reason that a blind person who simply couldn't cut it, um, wouldn't make it. Funny how a rigorous system of challenges often manages to not only prepare people to be professionals, but also manages to weed out the weak or incapable, isn't it.
Now, with that said, there is one point I do agree with from the other side.
Yes, blind people might be perfectly competent doctors...just general doctors here, I mean, not necessarily heart surgeons or whatever. But no, that does not mean blind people can do anything. Of course they can't. There are some things which are quite simply beyond us. What it does mean, however, is that we have to be realistic. And being rellistic doesn't just mean bowing to whatever we -think is realistic. It means finding the data, looking at it objectively, and drawing conclusions.
Oh, and speaking of realism: what the hell has being flown to Florida got to do with being a doctor? Why does that silly challenge actually hold any weight, and apparently invalidate the claims Bill is making? Bill never once said that all blind people can do all things.
Nah. I think I'm mostly with Holly here. A whole bunch of people missed the boat and happily hopped on the bandwagon instead. Double standards ho!
Because it illustrates that the judgments I'm making are the same ones he's
making. There's no special evidence that a blind person can't be a pilot which
can't be applied to doctors. If you're willing to say that a blind person can be
more than you assume, shouldn't you assume that they could fly you to florida?
Or are you saying that sometimes its reasonable to judge that they can't do
some things?
Well, to be honest with you, Cody, if I knew of a blind pilot with a pilot's license, I'd probably have a crapton of questions for them because I confess I don't get how it's possible. But rather than go into it with the "christ no, you're not flying me anywhere" mentality some of you seem to embody, I'd be realistically skeptical. I mean, obviously the guy did it, and if he made it through the system that's supposed to get rid of the incompetent and the simply unprepared, then I'd give that some merit. Just as I would for a doctor. I'd just want to know more than I do right now. I'd have questions on how certain things are/were possible, just as I might for a doctor. I would assume, however, that those questions had satisfactory answers; I'd just like to hear them first.
With a doctor, I know it's possible, for instance, to feel for veins. I've felt nurses and doctors both do that before (feeling veins, I mean), and have been told by many of them over the years that doing it by touch is actually pretty easy. Pilots though? I know little enough about it that my ignorance is my greatest impediment. I'd work to dispel that ignorance before making any judgment call. In the meantime, I'd just be thinking "Okay, show me a blind pilot, and I'll have some questions for them".
I have never heard a sighted person tell me that I would make a good pilot as a blind person before. However, I have had a sighted osteopathic doctor specializing in osteopathic manipulation tell me that I would make a good osteopathic doctor as a blind person because osteopathic manipulation is performed by touch and not sight.
However, if you are not willing to give a blind person a chance if this person can find alternative techniques to get the job done, and can past the same training and certification as anyone else, then how exactly can you expect sighted people to give you a chance as a blind person? Those of you who are claiming that a blind person could not successfully draw blood simply because you are not sure how it could be done are pretty much doing the same thing as sighted people telling you that you cannot do something as a blind person simply because they are not completely sure how you do something as a blind person.
and if a doctor proves to me that they can do it, then great. But for now I'm
gonna say no. If I walked into the hospital today, and had a blind doctor, I'd
have a lot of questions too, just like you have with the pilot. But while I'm
asking those questions, I'm not just going to assume he knows what he's doing.
I'm going to ask questions. Again, we reach this point where we're saying the
same thing, and I'm the only one willing to call the spade the spade rather than
the triangularly pointed digging and/or scooping implement.
No, Cody, there's a difference.
I'm willing to say "Yes, but I'm curious...". You're saying, "No. Convince me first". The fact that the person has the qualifications isn't good enough for you. The rigorous training they went through isn't enough for you. You are basically making that person answer your questions before you find their ability to work within a field credible and supportable. I, on the other hand, am curious about all those things, sure, but if they made it through training or whatnot, I'm going to assume until proven otherwise that they're competent.
I guess you're the sort of person who wouldn't mind exhaustively explaining to a skeptic why it is that your degree and your blindness don't really get in each other's way. You wouldn't mind the heavy doubt of a skeptic who refused to let your credentials speak for themselves, and it's okay by you that you should have to over-explain yourself just to be taken seriously or trusted. I find this peculiar, since it flies in the face of most of what I know about you. But that's the conclusion I'm drawing. That, or you're exercising another double standard, and I'd hate to think so.
using psychiatrist as an example for medical doctor will be rather, um, like Cody said, grasping the straw. Although psychiatrist can be consider, and are consider as a medical doctor, but psychiatrist don't do most of the thing that doctor's do. In fact, one of the few similarity as a psychiatrist and a medical doctor will have is to go through the 9 or more years of intensive training, and ability to prescribe medicine.
There are lots of profession blind people can do, (in theory). blind people can go through most of the medical school training for sure, but how they will go through practicle training, on I think it starts on second year, that will be the challenge, and issue. There are some of my contacts who were medical doctor, a practice GP, and a surgent. Ones they acquire vision lost, not to the point that they are legally blind, but they are consider having vision impairment, they are force to surrender their practice licence. The authority wasn't questioning their ability, but as a duty of care for everyone else, and for themselves, as medical practicioner, the authority suspend their practice licence. Same happen to a cormertial pilot as well. He acquire vision lost, and the authority also suspend his licence.
. I think Cody said it well, it is not about what the blind person want or can do, it is sometime about the duty of care, the possible thrat against others, or put others in danger or harm will be the major concern. And this is not just for blind people, this is for anyone who have disability, who cannot pass through the inherent requirement for a particular field of profession.
It is great to able to dream, I dream that all the time, I dream that I can drive, I can fly a plane, I can join the defence force etc etc. But how realistic are my dreams? Well, dreaming of driving can and may happen in the next decade or so. as the rest, unless science have a rapit change in the next decade or two, if not, it will be only my sweet bittersweet dreams
So Joanne, Psychiatrists don't count? You might want to do a bit more research on what psychiatrists are actually able and allowed to do. Now, psychologists are not MD'S, perhaps that is what you meant?
Yes. Joanne, you make sense.
The problem with this concept of the system that's supposed to get rid of the incompetent is that we, the blind make them set up work stations and such that can only be used in the controlled setting it was designed for.
We get special wavers on things we cannot do and sometimes the system lets us slide.
So, sure, you could have a professional that wasn’t 100% competent as a seeing person is made to be
Look at all the stuff your doctors nurse would have to do. If the nurse got sick or wasn’t available what then?
If you take that professional out of the setting, or specialized situation, and we cannot perform well, or at all.
When your screen reader dies on your computer, and you cannot see the screen, even though it is working just fine, you cannot use the computer.
If I wasn’t aware and was reading this board, I’d get the impression that blind people believe they aren’t limited at all.
If that’s the case, why aren’t they being held to the same standards as the seeing?
They’ve got the ADA, technology, so why do they even qualify as disable?
I’ll say this again, I’m glad wiser minds realize our limitations.
All you super blind should not be taking advantage of your governments assistants. You are degrading your abilities.
For you super blind, if you don’t have that good paying job, you are lazy.
Now, I sound crazy, but think about it.
I actually don't know how I'd feel about being treated by a blind physician. I too would be curious how it was done. It is a testament to one's ability that they made it through medical school. Though there are some pretty bad sighted doctors who did that too. In Cody's case, while I don't really see him giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, I do sort of see where he's coming from. If a medical procedure is not done correctly, it can pose a serious danger. So yes, I see why one would want to be sure before they trust their health to someone. Reality may be defined by the day in terms of what we can do, but I can see why people might be concerned. It's like blind people driving. Sure there are self-driving cars coming out. Technically a blind person can do that I'm sure. But that isn't really a blind person driving. They're being driven by someone - by a computer. It's a little like a blind person writing. We use alternative ways to get the same result, but that doesn't mean we can work impressive cursive ... at least the vast majority of us who have never seen before probably can't. In the case of the car, it's all fine and dandy until there's some system failure and you need to rely on manual control. Or if there's a sensor glitch and you can no longer get a non-visual picture of what's around you. We need to be practical, while at the same time carefully (not slowly, but carefully) pushing the boundaries of practicality.
That is exactly the point here, is that some of us treasure our lives more than others, who would quickly say "Oh, you made it through med school, so you're qualified enough to make decisions about *my* health...and I'm not the expert here when it comes to my health. You doctor who have only seen me once, or even if you doctor have seen me for years, you're the expert here on *my* health and I'm foregoing all reason and expertise on *my* health because *you* are the professional, therefore more qualified than me regarding my health."
Now, in case people couldn't differentiate here, that was sarcasm. It's clear to me that many here would be quick to trust medical professionals just because they are medical professionals. I'm not willing to go that far, and I'd venture to say that Cody, Joanne and Wayne aren't either. Because *I* am the expert on my health, and I'm part of a team of medical professionals who are trying to come together and decide what is best for managing my healthcare. So yes, those of you who say Cody and myself aren't willing to just let someone touch me because they are a medical professional, you are exactly right. People need to treat me as part of their team, and indicate to me why I should let them be on my team. I'm not talking about long detailed disertations, I'm talking about them demonstrating to me why they're fit for the job so to speak. Sometimes they demonstrate that to me simply by being kind, helpful and giving me explanations when I ask for them. Sometimes they don't demonstrate that to me at all. So anyway, what I'm trying to illustrate here is that some of you are acting like no one should have to prove themselves to become successful in the world. The reality though, is that no matter who you are or what profession you're in, you *have* to prove your worth to others in the world. As blind people, or people with additional disabilities, I'd argue that that's even more true for us. We have to prove ourselves much more, to a greater extent than others, if we want anything positive to be near our names. That's a fact of life, and as I said at the beginning of this post, some of us clearly just don't value the same things about or in life, that others of us highly value.
And, since I don't think I answered Gregg's question earlier, yes, I am
perfectly happy demonstrating my abilities to someone who is doubtful. That's
why I have writing samples. If someone doubts that I can write a professional
paper, I have multiples ready to hand to them. I don't think us blind people
should be able to skate by on "because I said so". we can't logically expect
someone to hire us for a job they have doubts on simply because we tell them
we can do it. we should be willing to demonstrate that we can do it.
Well, I don't want to be demonstrated on.
I am a person that believes some things just require you see them no matter how good you think you are.
My doctor needs to be able to assess my condition completely.
Visually, and by feel, and what I tell them, and technology. I want all of it.
Sorry blind doctors. You may do the mental stuff however, but I don't need this service yet.
My driver needs to be able to handle the car when the computer stops.
My painter needs to be able to match colors on my room, house, or car.
They need to be able to paint and make sure they cover everything.
I guess I'm going to hear, well, blind people can paint too, right?
Laughing.
Lately I've been hearing a lot about blind photographers. I suppose I could learn to take pictures but I wouldn't enjoy it at all. To each their own I guess.
Just because someone survived med school does not automatically qualify them to be my doctor. Some doctors are idiots. My school district required me to undergo eye exams every so often to make sure I was still blind. The eye doctor knew about my condition but still acted surprised or irritated when I couldn't point my eyes in the directions he asked. I don't expect everyone to understand that I can't control my eyes, but someone who has studied eye conditions for years and has my information right in front of him shouldn't struggle with this concept. Some doctors also disrespect me like the one I talked about in the birth control thread. If a doctor is stupid or disrespects me, I disqualify them.
I do not know of any sighted doctor who does not work without the assistance of a nurse or technician. So it does not appear to me as though this would simply be an accommodation for a blind doctor. And I do not know of anything that really required sight during my exam with the osteopathic manipulation doctor that absolutely required sight except to enter data into a computer system that most likely was not accessible with a screen reader. However, there are ways around this as I have seen sighted doctors record things verbally to be typed at a later date and time.
And as far as a blind person presenting a writing sample is concerned, how can you expect other people to trust that you actually wrote the paper yourself? If you are simply presenting a paper, perhaps someone else wrote it for you. Or perhaps someone help you with the formatting of the paper. If you presented a paper that you wrote only to be questioned as to whether or not you actually wrote it, would you not be a bit insulted by this line of questioning? It sounds like you are expecting the writing sample to somehow prove your qualifications without any questions being asked about how you completed the writing sample.
I've heard of some blind photographers too, and apparently some of them are
actually very good. There are blind painters as well, like artistic painters. I
would like to have some of their art in my future home. I'm told some of it is
good impressionistic work, though I lean more toward realism than
impressionism myself. But, if a painter makes a bad painting, no one bleeds.
That's the key for me.
And cat, considering that submitting someone else's work as my own would
utterly destroy my reputation, which is the most valuable thing in the world of
an academic, such an accusation would be a very very serious one. People do
not make it lightly. But, if they did, you would have two options off the top of
my head. One, write a basic essay in front of them on a simple subject to show
that you know how its done. This is frequently done in some specific settings.
Two, find somewhere else to apply. Anyone with such low integrity that they
would accuse someone of plagiarism as a first resort is not somewhere you want
to be putting your intellectual property.
Blind photographers are usually people with low vision.
Legally blind.
I'm speaking totally blind.
In all seriousness, what could a totally blind photographers get out of taking pictures?
What pleasure?
Someone explain that to me?
It be like taking a totally blind person to an art show and telling them to enjoy the art but not giving them any tactal contact with it.
Bill, I said before, Psychiatrist is a medical doctor, it is consider as MD, but it does not perform most of the duty that MD does. It has very unique responsibilities and duties as a Psychiatrists. It is a medical doctor because it prescribe medicine and so on. In fact, I made it clearly that Psychiatrisst can prescribe medicine. But it is not a brain surgent, it does not operates on people.
Now, coming back to the blind photographers and blind artists, I think art is limitless. How well you can be a (totally blind) photographer or visual artist will be a different story, but it can be done. I see some very nice painting and photographs from blind photographers and blind visual artists as well. It is about imagination, and making your imagination happen. Hens, also why, I mention it on one of my earlier post, not all blind artists must only be identify as blind musicians.
As far as how much one can enjoy it, well, is the same as blind people playing video games isn't it, if you ask those that play video games, i'm sure they enjoying it as much as a sighted person, so, I don't think its fair to put judgement on how an individual can or cannot enjoy certain activities or hobbies, just like I never understand how one can enjoy smoking or taking drugs.
I do both, painting and photographing. I enjoy them both, challenging the norms of what blind people visually can or cannot do, from both blind community and also mainstream community. I've done several exhibition locally, and am planning to do more in the near future.
From the contacts that I have with blind painters, I do agree though, we tent to paint more abstract and impressionistic work. However, i know there are few partially sighted painters have very nice realism work as well.
Forereel I've asked the exact same question since I like tangible rewards. The only way I think I'd derive any pleasure from it is if I could convert the pictures to either tactile drawings or sound. Pranav Lal is a totally blind Indian photographer who uses the vOICe program to hear his pictures
Okay, I agree I shouldn't say they don't enjoy it, I should have said I'd find it difficult to understand how.
I'm only speaking of someone that is totally blind in this case.
Now when I talk about painters, I don't mean pictures.
I am refurring to a house painter.
We are talking work here.
And no, I don't want a totally blind person painting my house.
I am blind, and I can paint, however, I don't do a good job at all.
Someone has to come behind me and fix things, so that person may as well just paint.
I'd allow a blind painter to do it for fun, but I'm not hiring one.
Laughing.
See, here's the question I will pose those of you who want someone's medical expertise demonstrated beforehand.
Do you put that requirement on all medical folks, or just the blind ones?
Are you immediately nervous of any new medical professional, or just the blind ones?
Because here's the point I'm trying to make:
No, getting through med school doesn't make you a good doctor. You're absolutely right about that. It means you made it through, but there might have been corners you cut, or you might have been in a shitty program with low standards (harder to do in the medical profession, but not impossible. But being blind doesn't immediately make you a bad one either.
Chelsea, if you're nervous about medical professionals in general, then that's fine. But if you're saying that someone's blindness would make you refuse until they bent over backward to prove their capability, while you wouldn't ask that self-same requirement of a sighted doctor, then you're being a bit of a hypocrite. In one breath, people in this topic are talking about being seen as what we deserve to be seen as. In the next breath, they're essentially saying we should have to prove ourselves threefold because we're blind. And never mind the fact that just getting through med school as a blind person is a pretty difficult thing to do. That's still not good enough, apparently.
So I guess what I'm saying is this:
Have reasonable doubts if 1. you don't know someone at all or 2. that person has actually demonstrated that they're incompetent. Perfectly reasonable. But beyond that, I daresay there comes a point when asking someone to jump through hoops to please you gets kind of ridiculous. If we ask this of others, they're going to ask it of us. I'm fully in favour of being able or willing to prove myself competent at something if I have to, but it should not come as a matter of course. Because guess what, guys? This runs counter to the whole "being seen as exactly what we are" thing. If we, as disabled people, are constantly having to go eleven extra miles just to satisfy people, if in fact this is the standard we are expecting one another to aspire to, then really all we're doing is paddling around in one place and not actually making forward progress. Instead of people eventually seeing us for what we are, we must always be ready and willing to prove it. That doesn't actually engender change. It's just doing a lot of what we're doing already. That's not progress, it's stagnation, and it feeds directly into some of the things some of you have stood for.
I am honest-to-god chuckling at the moment. This amuses me greatly.
And with that, back into the background I go. Maybe I'll be back. I thought I wouldn't be before, but this was just too good.
Yes Gregg, if I'm going to a new doctor, I do research on them first. I find out
where they got their degree. Did they go to Johns Hopkins, or to joe Shmoe
comunity college? Do they specialize in one thing or another? Are they board
certified? Are they a fellow of one sort or another? Have they lectured
anywhere? Do they have any published work I can look at?
But sometimes I will make a blind or disabled person jump through a few
more hoops. If I, say, hire a deaf DJ for my wedding, I'm gonna want a sample
of his or her work before I sign over the paycheck. If I hire a blind truck driver
or something, I'll want to make sure that the job will be performed at the same
level as a sighted person. If not, I'll go to a sighted person. I don't think that
sets us back at all. I'm not saying that have to perform miracles for me to trust
them. They don't have to turn water into wine, but a basic demonstration of
their skills wouldn't be asking too much. its why professionals have samples.
Painters will have paintings you can few. Tattoo artists will publish galleries of
their tattoo work. Doctors make profiles that you can research to tell what kind
of work they do and what kind of reputation they have. Chefs will usually be
happy to give you samples of things in certain settings. You think I'd hire a chef,
if I owned a restaurant, without trying his or her cooking? I don't care if its
Gordon Ramsy, he gets his butt in the kitchen and makes me something first
before he has a hope of being hired. If I was hiring a ghost writer, for some
unknown reason, I'd want a sample of their work first. I'd want a secretary to
be able to type. A salesperson, if I were interviewing them, would sell me a pen
or something. Hell, I might even just take them into the show room of whatever
I'm selling and tell them to sell me one of my products to make sure they know
their stuff. Professors, before they're hired, often make videos of themselves
giving a lecture to show that they know how to do it. This is not unusual. Why
should blind people be exempt from it simply because we give our word that we
can do something?
Oh Cody, have mercy on us poor blind people. We should not expect to do all that stuff, you know. you should hier us regardless because we are blind, and its your social responsibility to help the blind, no? you cold blood bastard.
LOL Joanne.
Greg, you are saying idiotic things--putting things on me (which you seem to do quite well and frequently, I might add). Yet, those things you are saying/implying are totally off-base.
I'm shocked that you could even think that we as blind people shouldn't prove ourselves to society, or that we don't have to prove ourselves to society. Quite frankly, I would be shocked at anyone who displays such thinking. Because as I've said before, like it or not, everyone has to prove themselves to society at some time or other. Why should we be exempt from doing so because we're disabled? Explain that logic to me because you're only kidding yourself if you think such thinking will help you in life.
Like Cody, I'm perfectly willing to prove myself where and when I'm asked by people or if I need to do so for people. Anyone should feel that way, sighted, blind, whatever. Because there are instances in all of our lives (or at least those of us who want to be productive citizens in society) that we have to justify to others how we can get a specific task done.
For example, if you want to get a different note-taking device than what your local vocational rehabilitation agency usually gets for its clients, you the client have to justify to your vocational rehabilitation counselor why X machine would work better than Y machine. The agency doesn't just give things to you the client because you the client ask for them. I just went through this exact thing not too long ago myself, with the note-taking device I wanted, as well as with the leg braces I needed that would help me become employable. And yes, my local vocational rehabilitation agency paid for both of those things.
On one last note Greg: it's getting old hearing you say you won't come back, then you keep coming back. Please stop saying that already, and either keep posting or shut up.
I like what Shepherdwolf said in post 279. I do not see anything wrong with drifting in and out of a board topic discussion.
However, I do find it rather interesting to hear someone talk about how we should not just expect to receive entitlements on this board topic while asking for an entitlement on another board topic. Seems rather hypocritical to me.
Would you like to tell us who you're talking about, or do you just feel like
being a coward and anonymously accusing people of hypocrisy?
Seems to me that a couple of you are intentionally misreading, or misrepresenting what Gregg, Kat, and I have said. Why is that?
Gregg never said we should not have to prove ourselves, he said we should not have to prove ourselves to a degree beyond what any other person in the same field has to do. He also said that, yes, we sometimes have to prove ourselves beyond the norm now, but that is not the goal. We should be accepted by the exact same standards expected of others in the same field. Not the exact same procedures or processes, just the same standards. He, Holly, and I have also said that for you to apply a different standard to a blind person than you would apply to a sighted person from whom you are seeking services is doing exactly what we as blind people so often complain about. To do that when you yourself have been a victim of that sort of prejudice is negatively reinforcing stereotypes even within our own group. I am also seeing an awful lot of name calling on here, and then being displeased when the favor is returned. Coward? really? That is just the most recent. It is obvious that Chelsea, Cody, Joanne, and Wayne more or less agree, and Kat, Gregg, Holly, and I more or less agree. And as far as continually bringing up truck drivers? sheesh
but that's kind of illogical Pasco. The fact of the matter is that we are not like
anyone else. Yes, sometimes we have to prove more than anyone else that we
can do something, but if we can do that something, who cares? You prove it,
you shove that proof down their throats, and you go on about it. We simply
have to accept that we are not like everyone else, and we never will be. I think
that a lot more blind people would have jobs if they offered to prove that they
can do something, if they insisted on proving it. Hell, when you go into a job
interview, ask to be allowed to prove that you can do something. Force them to
face the fact that you can do it, and are eager to do it. If we did that, a lot more
of us would have jobs. Yeah, perfect equality would be all well and good, but its
a fantasy that is never going to be achieved because of the realities of
blindness. If you focus on that, instead of what is possible, you blind yourself,
metaphorically speaking of course.
1. Chelsea, I did not at any time say that we should never have to prove ourselves. What I said was that having to prove ourselves to ridiculous lengths because we're blind is counterintuitive to this sort of "struggling to be seen as what we are" thing. I don't know if you have a serious problem with the English language, or if you're just not detail-oriented, or if you're trying to invent conflict where there isn't any - I suspect the latter, myself - but I have very, very clearly stated what I meant, and being misrepresented this way says far more about you than it does about me, most of it pretty unflattering.
2. Bill and Holly get it. The rest of you, who continue to argue points I'm not actually making, seem not to. That's all right. I'm only going to try so hard before I give it up as a lost cause.
3. Cody, I am not suggesting that we never have to prove ourselves. You're right. That's stupid. At the absolute worst, I am taking issue with the mentality, the way you're coming across.
An employer who wants to hire you and says "Hey, I've never seen a blind person do this before, so do you mind showing me" is an employer who wants to listen, probably. It's a person who's essentially saying that they think you're likely capable of whatever it is, but wants proof.
On the other hand, an employer who says something like "How is a blind person supposed to do this job? There are so many sight-related aspects, I just don't get it", and who generally gives off the "I won't believe it until you bend over backward trying to prove it" vibe...well, that's the sort of person you appear to be when it comes to, say, blind doctors and the like.
Listen. A little skepticism or a lot of lacking knowledge are to be expected. If we can educate, particularly where our credentials and ability to be employed are concerned, it's often not a bad thing. But there is a world of difference between honest curiosity and ignorance, vs. heavy cynicism and the "prove it" mentality. The latter is a really demeaning way to treat someone who very likely has the qualifications required. The latter is a really excellent way to make that person feel defensive, weary, wary, even a little angry, because once again their years of preparation seem to count for next to nothing. Having watched people go through the employment struggle, having heard a great deal of that heavy-handed skepticism, I can tell you that it's a real drag. It's hard on the people who get splashed with it sometimes. Sometimes it even makes them shy away from trying because not only are they not getting the job, but they are made to feel like they're running up a near-vertical slope with people trying to shove them down at every second step. This is, as you might be able to grasp, something which flies in the face of progress.
So let me wrap this up with a bow on it.
1. Having to prove yourself is something you may have to do if you're sighted, and may have to do a bit more if you're blind. This is fair enough, particularly in certain fields.
2. The more proving a blind person has to do, the more potential harm exists. More proving means more effort for virtually the same outcome even though the blind person has likely done as much or more work getting to that point. More proving means there is inherently more resistance without good reason, based on the cynic/skeptic's view of blindness (which is, as I think you'd agree, rather, ahem, shortsighted more often than not).
3. We will never be truly equal, but I don't think it's too much to ask that our qualifications be taken seriously, at least on a trial basis, until or unless we demonstrate that we're incompetent or unprepared for the task. This goes whether we're blind, deaf, sighted, paraplegic or anything else.
4. The heavier your cynicism, the greater your hypocrisy. That is all.
I understood Sheps point in his first post.
No, I won't expect a blind person to prove themselves based on them being blind.
I will ask them to show me some qualificationsjust like I would a sighted person.
On jobs I feel a person would be limited at based on my personal experience as a blind person, I simply won't seek services from such person.
I also don't seek service from say a person in any field that hasn't been tested. If they haven't been tried/tested, then if I'm hiring them, they'll be tried or tested as stated here.
As to doctors, I only go to the specific doctor my main doctor I've had forever suggest.
I made the mistake of going someplace else once, and it was a mess.
Laughing.
Cody, you are seeing things as I was trying to get you to earlier in this board.
We're limited and these that don't want to face that fact will have a difficult time.
Some people get emotionally stressed because they can't achieve something. The blame it on the technology, the teacher, anything else but the fact, it just isn't doable for a blind person that wants to live as a sighted person.
Everything can not, and will not be accessible, but some of us want everything to be.
Yeah Wayne, I realized in one of my posts to Gregg I think that I had phrased
my objections to your point badly. I didn't mean you were wrong. What I meant
was that our response to the idea "blind people can have well-paying careers"
should not be, "But what about freight truckers and airline pilots?" It should be,
"damn right they can." I'm of the opinion that some things should be taken as
simply a moot point, like that there are certain jobs blind people can't do.
Apparently my assumption was wrong for some people.
Now then, Gregg, here is what my reaction would be to someone who said "I
simply don't understand how a blind person can do this job, its so visual." I
would stand up, straighten my tie and say the following, "Well sir or madame,
I'll show you exactly how it can be done." And then I would proceed to show
them. If I want to be a painter, I'll show them that I can paint. If I want to be a
ballerina, I'll show them I can look good in skin tight outfits. If I want to be
whatever, I will show them that I have the capabilities to do whatever. if I can't
show them right then and there, like maybe I want to be a train driver and
there are no trains available, I'll ask them to call in a train driver and have him
or her ask me every question they can think of like the british navy did for
officers who wanted to become a lieutenant. Give me every example,
hypothetical, eventuality and if-then you can think of, and see how I respond.
And if that's not good enough, nothing would have been.
Now, of course, you're right in that it would be nice if we never had to do this
and our qualifications always spoke for itself. But it would also be nice if my
eyes worked, and they don't. So why not whine about that while you're at it? It
would do just as much good. You might as well whine that science hasn't come
up with a way to give you your sight back as whine that sighted people don't
understand every possible intricacy of blind capability. You'll be beating your
head against an equally unmovable wall. I choose to look at things a bit more
realistically. Here's my creed. Blind people have to be better than everyone
around them, at everything everyone around them is doing. You have to dress
better, pay closer attention to detail, speak better, know more, perfect your
manners, push harder, run faster, hit harder and take more punches than
anyone else around them that isn't disabled. And that sucks. It royally sucks. it
would be great if none of us had to do that and we could just lay around in our
underwear every day until the job fairies got around to us and plopped one in
our crumb incrusted laps. But that ain't the way the world works. Get the fuck
over it and move on.
You wanna know how we get to that point where blind people are seen as
equal, by having a bunch of people pull up their big people panties and getting
over the fact that life is unfair to the disabled. The way we prove to sighted
people that we can do a lot more than they give us credit for is when they have
blind examples besides a couple piano players and helen Keller. And you wanna
know how we get there? By people in our generations simply gritting our teeth
and doing what needs to be done. Yeah, its gonna suck a whole hell of a lot.
You're gonna have to slog through a hole hell of a lot of shit. You're gonna get
shoved off that vertical wall so many times you're gonna be more bruise than
you are not bruise, and you're gonna wanna quit. You're gonna want to go back
to collecting paychecks and playing world of whatever craft every day, because
it was so much easier, and role playing games don't hurt you so much, and your
dark wood elf can become a level fifty war mage just as easily as any sighted
person dark wood elf. But guess what. The world don't fuckin' work that way.
You think black people just popped up in the sixties and said "Hey, we'd like a
voting rights act please." Fuck no. They had a century's worth of people getting
shotgunned, hanged, dragged behind horses and trucks, burned alive, used as
target practice, and in one particularly memorable incident I read, getting their
leg stapled to a telephone pole so they couldn't vote in Mississippi. You think
women popped up in 1919 and said, "Pardon us, but if its not too much trouble,
could you please pass us the right to vote?" Of course not, they had people
starve to death in prison, get beaten by their husbands and fathers, get
attacked by religious people and police. Gay people didn't just show up and get
the right to marry whomever they love. They fought for it in the streets of new
york and the neighborhoods of pensylvania. You think blind people are gonna
get anything without taking it by force? Of course we're not. You want
something, you don't live in a world where you can expect to be handed
anything but pity, and if you're ok with that, then kindly get out of the way of
those of us who aren't. But if you want more than table scraps and spare
crumbs from tax payers, then be prepared to deal with some shit that royally
sucks. And whining about it, and expecting your degree and qualifications to
speak for themselves isn't gonna get you anywhere but right back onto the
public bread line.
That, I think, is one of the major differences between you and I Gregg. You
see these kinds of things as unfair, and unkind, and unequal. I see them as a
fucking challenge. I may not conquer the challenge, but I'm gonna enjoy trying.
Ok on the medical thing:
I'm a neighborhood emergency team disaster responder, and medical I am really weak on, but not because I'm blind.
truth be told, medical makes me squeamish always has. But distster responders -- we know how to get your ass out of underneath things that have fallen on you, set up electronics and communications networks, do menial stuff like shovel snow to clear your crasswalks during a blizzard event, or clear storm drains during a flooding event, and lots more outdoors stuff. We work in teams, some are medical, who direct the rest of us re: carrying someone out of a building. If you were stuck in a building and I were responsible to get you out safely, as a blind person, I'd backpack carry you.
Now this is community volunteer activities, but the same applies.
As someone who's been in the technology business, I agree with Jared re: relevant experience.
Cody, you missed the point again, and rather spectacularly this time. Kindly save your paragraphs of pseudo-emotional rhetoric for those times when you actually know what you're talking about. This time, you don't. You've completely misrepresented me, yet again. I swear, reading comprehension is a dying art.
Not once did I suggest we deserve to have things just given to us. Not once did I say that having a tough time is the end of the discussion. I'm in agreement with you. We do have to do better, be better in most cases just so we can get a fair hearing, and the best thing we can do, as a group, is to do that as often as we can, in the hopes that someday, somehow, that steep upward slope will be somewhat less punishing. It's fine to say that something is hard, but it doesn't end there. We have to ask ourselves, "Okay, it's hard, so what the hell do I do about it?". You're preaching to the converted on that score.
My overarching point in posting on this board, the last few times anyway, is to demonstrate the potential double standard here. On the one hand, you admit that some people are less open, less fair than others. And at the same time, you seem to be saying that you'd be willing to be heavily cynical toward a blind person based on your own experience. You would be that guy who was being aggressively cynical, putting yet another obstacle in a blind person's way, rather than being simply curious and a bit skeptical. You would be the sort of person who simultaneously admits that the struggle is real and would make it even harder given the right set of circumstances. And this blows my mind.
Now, if I've misunderstood you, Cody, please set me straight. Maybe if you somehow had a blind doctor, you'd ask questions but would be respectful. Maybe you'd start from an "I'm curious, so let me understand" mentality instead of a "blind people can't be doctors, you've got some explaining to do" point of view. Maybe you wouldn't be heavy-handed in your cynicism. But at the moment, that's not how it looks. At the moment, it looks like you'd do to a blind person the same thing certain sighted employers would. And if that is in fact the case, I can safely say that I hope you're never in a position to employ any disabled people, because you'd very likely just add to the overall struggle. That, I'd say, is a pretty terrible thing to do, helping even in a small way to oppress and step on members of the very group you inhabit.
I have a bit more to say on this.
This is for the blind ideologues out there. Especially if you're young.
In my early 40s I started to realize, there was no way I'd be some kind of star, living up to the standards often cited by other blind people.
Do I work? Yes. Do I volunteer in my community? Yes. Hell, I even take care of my daughter recovering from an injury when she needs it. But here's the thing. You, me, and every other blind person are one accident away. One illness away. In my case, could be one seizure away, from losing a lot of this. So even if you're part of the leading ideological organization, even if you get all kinds of akalades for your ideological conformity, you could lose it in an instant, and those who care for your ideology only will spit you out and forget they ever knew you.
I fully admit I'm in the throes of midlife angst.
I fully admit that things that seemd very black and white when I was younger are not so easy now. More often than not, I don't know. If I get too confused I do defer to the whiskey bottle and the big fat dooby.
I do know I'm rather sick of the tight chest, the nagging ideological conformity which tends to exacerbate the lifelong depressiongI've dealt with, and would rather skip it.
So, what is your solution Shep?
Will you allow a blind person to do major surgery on you no questions asked?
He/he's in the hospital, right?
Ok, I will say this again Gregg. Here is my reasoning. If there is a risk that
someone will bleed, I will happily put another obstacle in front of a blind person
Doubly so if that person is myself. You're damn right that I would want to know
exactly how my blind surgeon is going to know where to cut without seeing
what he's doing before he starts sharpening his scalpel. Is that so difficult to
believe? You think that simply because he has an MD that he's qualified? Do you
know how many doctors cut off the wrong limb every year? And that's with
them being able to see the magic marker the nurse draws on the correct limb
with. You think I"m gonna trust a blind person to do it?
Now, if I walk into a psychiatrists office, and the shrink is blind, who cares. I'll
plop down on the couch and tell her all about how my uncle billy used to beat
me with fish or whatever. Because there's no risk of me bleeding in that.
What's more, I would expect any blind doctor to foresee these objections and
be prepared to answer them. I was prepared to answer questions when I went
to get my pistol training. I was prepared to instruct people on how I use a
handgun safely. You're telling me that expecting a blind doctor or driver or
airline pilot to do the same is me being discriminatory? I'm sorry, but if you
honestly think that you are a moronic fool. Remember, Andrew Wakefield has a
doctorate. He's not qualified to do shit.
Nah, Cody's right.
Any of us with disabilities that do things in the community as volunteer responders answer such questions.
Dear god. Sometimes I think you enjoy not getting the points I make, or pretending not to get them, just to see how many different ways I can explain the same thing.
The issue is not, repeat, NOT! that you have to explain yourself, or that someone else might have to. That much I can understand, even if sometimes it isn't ideal.
The issue is in the approach you take when you want someone to back themselves up.
If you go into it with the assumption that the person probably knows what they're doing, but you still want a bit of reassurance, then fine. Ask away. You'll probably be polite, and your request for proof/demonstration of skill will probably come out exactly the way it's supposed to. In cases like that, you probably won't piss anyone off.
If you go into it with a belligerent self-righteous attitude, you're doing exactly what I cited in my last post. You're essentially assuming that you know better than this professional what's possible for them. You're slapping your assumptions and standards on them, and basically demanding that they prove why you shouldn't do so. This is arrogance of the highest caliber, and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone.
When sighted employers do it to us, we probably take it, at least some of the time, because on rare occasions we can get our point across anyway. That, and it's a struggle, and all that. If we don't fight, it won't get better.
But when blind people do it to each other, it's considerably worse. If you want sighted people to stop assuming they know best about blind people and what they're capable of, stop fucking leading them by example.
If this doesn't get through to you, nothing will. I still can't decide whether or not you're deliberately misunderstanding because you think it's amusing to watch me answer the same arguments multiple times. I am done with this though. I may be back, but I will not honour any further discussion on this topic. The only thing I will be waiting to see is what sort of demands for proof you'd make, whether it be the skeptical but open-minded kind or the cynical and conceited sort.
I have never advocated that a blind person should become a surgeon as I believe this job would be difficult for a blind person to do. However, if I ever met a blind surgeon, I would be more than willing to hear how this person could successfully perform this job. Simply because I do not know how a blind person would be able to do something does not necessarily mean that other blind people have not come up with their own way of being able to do something.
However, if a blind person possesses the ability to graduate from medical school, successfully complete their residency training, and then find someone who is willing to hire them, then they obviously have some sort of capacity to perform this job. Not every doctor is a surgeon, and not every doctor aspires to be a surgeon. However, given what I know about the medical profession, I believe it would be possible for a blind person to become employed in the medical field in a number of different positions including a primary care doctor and a nurse working in a primary care office.
If a person is not qualified for a particular job within the medical field, then they most likely would have never found a way to make it through medical school, complete their residency, or be hired by someone else who has expertise in the medical field. Now this does not necessarily mean this person makes a good doctor as there are plenty of doctors who practice medicine who are not good doctors. However, I am not quite sure how someone with a degree in the history in civil rights really has the expertise to determine whether or not someone is qualified to be a doctor when this person has met the qualifications that have been set by others who have expertise in the field of medicine.
Now, if you choose not to go to a doctor who is blind simply because you do not feel comfortable seeing a blind doctor, you have every right to make this choice. However, to make claims that a blind person could never become a doctor when you have no professional knowledge of medicine or the human body is really nothing more than sheer ignorance.
If there are people on this board topic who are not willing to do things that would ruin their professional reputation, then what makes you think that other people would be willing to do things that would ruin their professional reputation? The people in charge of hiring a blind doctor would most likely not hire this person if they felt as though hiring a blind doctor would somehow ruin their professional reputation. So if a blind person were to ever become a doctor, then they most likely would have proven themselves not to be a liability to the professional reputation of those who hired the blind doctor in the first place. Most people hire other people they believe are capable of performing the job.
Gregg, I implore you to point out where I ever said that I would be biligerent
about it. when did I ever say that? I said I wouldn't let them operate on me
until some questions have been answered for me. I said I would want
reassurances. When did I ever say I would be biligerent about it? Do you
honestly think I can't ask people to prove they are capable without tact? What
in the world gave you the idea that I would be biligerent? Do you consider
saying no until proven that yes is a better answer to be biligerent? If so, I
wonder how you aren't taken advantage of on a daily basis.
Clearly, there is more ignorance around here than I thought--many of you don't seem to realize that sighted people in the medical field make lots of mistakes even though they are "qualified" in some sense of the word.
Just to give an example: I got X-rays for my right knee done a while back. Before the X-ray tech took the X-rays he said "It's your left knee, correct?" I told him that it was my right knee. If I hadn't spoken up though, that would've been a pretty costly mistake for my insurance company.
So anyway, I tell that story to show that just because someone has been through medical school, that does not at all mean that they never make serious mistakes.
Another thing: the reason I brought up the story about me needing to dress in a suit for a job interview was because of blind people's attitudes like many of the ones I'm seeing displayed here such as "we shouldn't need to prove ourselves to employers who have never interacted with a blind person before." While it would be great if we didn't have to go to such lengths sometimes, that is not how the world works. If you believe it is though, by all means continue to sit on your ass and think that while those of us who actually do care about earning our rightful spot in the world go on and make that happen for ourselves.
I stand on the point it isn't important I believe them, what it is important for me is I won't allow them to try on me.
If I knew a doctor had shaky hands, or drank, or did to many drugs, and many other things I believe might put my care in danger, I'm not going to that doctor.
A blind doctor to me wouldn't give me the best care do to limitations.
Sure, that is my opinion, but it is my reasons.
I'd hoy a person who had that kind of mental ability to get through medical school would also be realistic and do jobs that were safer. If a doctor is losing his or her abilities, I expect them to turn in the license and stop practicing on people, not use faulty judgment to prove there super.
That goes for contractors, drivers, pilots, and any other job where sight is the better tool when you are on that kind of job.
I spoke about painting houses.
Because I can paint, should I insist on working at a painters business just because I'm qualified, or should I be realistic and understand if I could see, I'd give the clients more for the money?
We've got plenty jobs we can do.
We must face limitations.
I will say again, this is why many blind persons are angry, or whatever, because they've chosen a profession that is hard, or impossible with current technology.
Who's fault is that?
This is why many blind persons are saying exactly what is said on this board.
"we can do anything."
No, we can't.
Now, I'm going to apply to load packages on trucks for UPS. I understand they are hiring.
I could use a scanner to read most labels, or the KNFB reader on my iPhone.
They could put tape on the ground, and the drivers could park specificly so I could find the different trucks while carrying a package to load it.
Yes, I know, the KNFB reader may not be able to read the hand writing on many packages, and I could slip off a truck with a mis step, but that doesn't matter.
I'm healthy, strong.
I know how to carry a box, and put it in place.
My coworkers can help when I can't do the job.
This is making things accessible.
I want to be paid exactly what my seeing coworkers get even though they must do my job, or help me often
I'll sue if I fall off a truck or get hit by one reversing I didn't hear and get workmen's comp.
This is a job a blind person can do with the correct setup.
Yes, I understand everything has to be changed so I can do this job, and I also understand most of the work will be done by others, but this is okay.
I believe we can be fire fighters.
No, I don't mean work in the office, I mean actually out in the field putting out fires and helping victums.
We can be police, on the street.
Under cover work would be ideal, don't you think?
Wayne, your last several posts were right on point. Your reason for not allowing a blind doctor to treat you, is exactly the thing I have been trying to communicate to many people on this topic, for a while now.
I have admitted that I used to parrot such things as many on this topic are parroting, but as I got older and became more experienced in life, I realized that that viewpoint was idealistic, rather than realistic. Now I am more of a realist, and I do not hesitate to admit that we as disabled people have limitations.
I think the reason I am able to admit that truth though, is because I realize that is the only way in life that will best serve me and allow me to reach my greatest heights. This is also the reason I'm not highly stressed: because I accept that we have limitations so am willing to figure out what I can do within those limitations that will allow me to live life to the fullest and be mostly happy. I really think that as you're saying, more people would do well to admit this fact.
I completely agree. Which is why I made that post oh so long ago that
apparently went over Gregg and Pasco's heads. I'll agree with you the minute
you let a blind guy fly you to florida.
Okay, I think you have to work for 5 years before you can apply for SSDI and I think it has to be full time. Also, I think on SSDI you can make up to $1, 840 a month. If it does start to affect your health coverage, there is a program called Medical Assistance for Workers with Disabilities in PA (MAWD) not sure if it is a state or federal program. It goes on how much you make to determine how much you pay. Just a few thoughts from my thoughtful brain<grin>
I love what chelsey pointed out, that even sighted doctors make mistakes. Perfect example in my life. My parents took me to a primary when I was six months, I had bad reddness in my right eye, I couldn't stand the light, etc, the doctor sent us home and said I had a brown and hazel eye. That didn't sit right with them, so they took me to another primary doctor, that day I was sent to an eye doctor, diagnosed with retinal blastoma and sent straight to the hospital.
And it makes me sick that someone can try their hand at every single thing to discredit someone, making the indirect comment that someone would falsely represent his/herself with another's writings. Some people are getting way too afended here, and I can't help but to wonder it's more due to wanting to be right than anything else.
My thoughts exactly, regarding people getting too uppity in this discussion.
Not over my head Cody. Just a specious argument on your part. You would have made a great sophist.
Wayne, I hate to poke a hole in the truth of your examples, but I did load trucks when I was much younger with no special accomodations. Your perception can be just as limiting as your vision.
If its specious Bill, why won't you simply answer the question of "would you
let a blind guy fly you to florida" with the word yes? Can you do that? Here, I'll
give you a clean copy to work with. Bill, would you allow a totally blind person
to fly you in an airplane from your home of wherever you live to Orlando
International Airport?
Like I said, specious.
Ok, so we can then assume the answer is no, because its rediculous to think
that Pasco is dumb enough to let a blind person fly him anywhere. So can
someone explain how its discriminatory for me to say I wouldn't let a blind
doctor operate on me, but not discriminatory to say that I wouldn't let a blind
pilot fly me somewhere?
Pasco, I've loaded trucks too and at a time I was totally blind.
However, I've never loaded trucks in a setting like UPS or the Post Office, or a food company.
You've done this?
Sure, we can load a moving truck, or something like that, but I am talking on a regular job sight?
No buddy, it ain't happening.
They'd be stupid to hire us flat out. It is to dangerous.
If you are saying you did, were did you work?
At this time, were you totally blind?
I'd like to add, if you claim you worked on a job site, can you explain how it was made accessible?
How did you read the addresses on the packages, or labels on the cartons and such?
Give me a description of how this jopb was done.
Not only will you disprove me, you'll give a blind person a workable idea for a possible job.
Smile.
Wayne, you did not specify that it had to be a mail or food truck originally. My loading experience was for work though. I was working for an events company that mounted beer festivals. I loaded palates of beverages and equipment. As all cargo was headed for one particular festival site at any one time, reading address packaging was not necessary. Yes, I was totally blind. We loaded using dollies and also by hand depending on the items to be loaded. Sometimes we worked off a dock, just as often we loaded from ground level using a narrow steel ramp, or sometimes hydraulic lift gates. I have no idea if a blind person could do mail. My point was that you were making assumptions in your original premise. You and Cody both do that, and then refuse to accept the argument when exceptions to your statement are made. If you make blanket statements, you cannot complain if exceptions are pointed out.
But that's the problem with your argument Pasco. You poke pinholes in a
blanket argument, then pretend like you shreded the entire blanket. You didn't.
All you did was point out how weak your actual argument is. Wayne, Chelsea
and I say that a blind person probably couldn't do job x, but then you point out
how on thursdays, with a south easterly wind, but not above forty degrees, and
only if you have a left handed blind person, then they could do something sorta
similar to that thing. Wayne says you probably can't load a truck, and you retort
by saying that you loaded one specific type of truck on a very small scale and
on a very lax schedule and with no sight requirements. You've done nothing to
actually disprove Wayne's point. When you have to resort to poking holes in a
blanket statement, and pointing out tiny discrepencies, you've lost the
argument. You're grasping at straws, just like Crazy Cat was earlier.
No argument present in this discussion, current or past, has gone over my head.
To answer the posed question, however:
Yes, I would allow a blind pilot to fly me to Florida.
If a pilot actually got their license and was blind, I would have to assume that they did it legally. I would have to assume that there's stuff that they know and I do not which would make it possible for them to fly. I would want to speak with them beforehand and ask them a few things because I'm a curious person, and because I do value my safety, but I'd be going into it with the idea that there were probably answers to my queries. When (not if, but when) I received satisfactory answers to those questions, I'd be willing to get in the plane.
A few things I know about flying a plane help in this regard:
1. No plane flies legally without a radio and contact to some form of air traffic control.
2. If the radio fails, a sighted pilot is in pretty deep trouble, although not as deep as a blind pilot. One of my questions would be protocol if the radio fails.
3. Most planes these days have extremely sophisticated navigational equipment which can not only help fly the plane, but can also help set courses. It's not like we're talking about flying a fighter jet through a war zone; we're flying a single plane through an enormous patch of sky, with a working radio.
If the pilot couldn't make me feel comfortable, I wouldn't fly with them.
Ditto the doctor.
But remember: from the outset, my stance would be "they got here, and they must've done more than just a few things right". Sure they might be bad at their job, but you take that risk when you get in a cab, or when you eat pork or poultry in a restaurant (has it been fully cooked), or any time you sign a waiver and go under the knife. Everyone can make mistakes, and blindness, or lack thereof, should not be the determining factor if that person has demonstrated that they have the skills necessary for their chosen job.
So yeah. Find me a blind pilot, and I'll have questions, but flying to Orlando is not out of the question. You'll probably say I'm just saying yes to win the argument, but you'd be a fool to think so. Or maybe you think my self-preservation instinct is on the low side. Again, a foolish notion. But frankly, this is the last hoop I'll jump through in the discussion. I've proven my points, all of them, and this last challenge accepted is the proverbial final nail in the coffin of all the ridiculous arguments presented against my stance. Good day.
Shep, you’re a brave man.
Pasco, if you reread my post I talk specifically about working for UPS and reading packages with the KNFB reader and lots of other things.
So, sure, I did say.
Cody and others who agree with me have agreed many things are possible, but not as you make it seem.
You have encouraged me greatly.
Uber and Lyft keep emailing me to be a driver. I think I’ll take them up on this.
Thank you.
I'm not that vrave, Wayne, not really. If I get in a plane with a blind pilot, it's because I have faith in that pilot's ability to fly. Same way as if I go to a blind GP's office. Sure, I'm gonna have questions, but I'm going to ask them politely. I'm going to ask with the expectation that there is an answer that will satisfy. However, if the answer is not to my satisfaction, then I won't proceed. I don't see what is so difficult to understand or believe here.
Here, spelled out again Greg, is what you and pascow are clearly missing. Are you listening to your screen reader's words? Cuz I didn't think I'd have to keep talking to you like a five year old...but since you insist: if *you* make a choice to go in a cab or eat food that happens to be poisonous, those things happen to *you* only. They wouldn't affect Cody or I because we didn't choose to do those things. By the way, those examples are really grasping straws, which shows that you know you don't have a leg to stand on in this whole discussion.
Then Greg, in the example that you used about letting a pilot fly you to Florida, you used the phrase "when I get satisfactory answers from the pilot." Whereas, as has been told you over and over again by Cody and myself, is the very difference between us all--you are clearly willing to give a blind pilot a chance just because you're Mr. Nicy Nice Guy, and you claim to want the same treatment from others. Cody and I are not willing to endanger our lives as you are. We are willing to admit and accept that we have limitations. And guess what? Even sighted people have limitations. By your logic though, no one has limitations, we all have the same level of knowledge or lack thereof, ETC. Everyone is all the same in your book, therefore everyone should all be nice to one another and let people who say they are qualified for any job, do that job without question...all because they say they are qualified for particular job. No one has to prove themselves, and it doesn't matter if a blind doctor cuts off my right hand because Greg doesn't know me, nor does the fact a blind doctor might cut off one of my hands mean much because I still have another hand to use, right? What matters is the fact I shut up and let that blind doctor do his job because he told me he was qualified and that's all it takes, right? Right!
Actually Chelsea, I think its even simpler than that. Gregg has said that we're
being discriminatory because we'd ask a doctor questions, then he says "when,
not if, but when" he gets answers from the pilot, he'd be ok. So its fine for him
to insist the blind person prove himself capable and safe before Gregg would
allow him to fly, but not ok for me or you to do it. If we do it its discriminatory.
if Gregg does it, its just him being Gregg. Because, as I said earlier, its not a
spade, its a triangular scooping or gardening implement, and Saint Gregg can't
possibly do something so crass and impolite as judge anyone. Saint Gregg can't
have preset judgments about anyone. That just wouldn't be fucking saintly.
Never mind the fact that him saying he wouldn't allow himself to be flown until
he's had some questions answered is precisely the same thing as me saying I
wouldn't let a surgeon operate until I've had some questions answered. Never
mind that Gregg has made it perfectly clear, of his own free will I might add,
that he is talking about insisting on getting answers. Never mind that Gregg
would never even have the opportunity to ask those questions of a sighted pilot.
never mind the fact that the questions wouldn't even occur to him, which means
that he's treating the blind pilot differently than he would a sighted pilot. Never
mind all that, Saint Gregg can't possibly be discriminatory, because he's saint
Gregg. He can do absolutely no wrong. Next he'll die on the cross for our
fucking sins.
Gregg, this is why I made that argument, because I knew one of you
wouldn't realize how hypocritical you're being. You're too desperate to be
fucking perfect to realize that you're no better than the rest of us. Your
sanctimonious preening is fucking annoying. I'm honestly glad it was you who
answered and not Pasco. At least pasco isn't a self-satisfied ass. But, you're
done responding here, so I'm sure you won't say anything in your own defense
will you. That wouldn't be saintly. Man of your word Gregg?
Point well taken Cody. And no, Saint Greg won't come back, just like he says he won't do, every time he posts to this topic. "I'm done on this topic" he says time and time again. Then he with his Saintly annoyingness, ruins our ears 15 thousand more times by posting to a topic he so clearly does not care about, as evidenced by how many times he's come back.
So Chelsea, now you think I have the understanding of a five year old just because I do not accept the premise of your argument? What a sweetheart you are.
Cody, I have been only arguing what is fact when blanket statements are made. The arguments aren't weak just because they are specific. As far as I know, there has never been a blind licensed pilot. Until such time as piloting an aircraft becomes doable by a blind person, I obviously would not allow myself to be flown by one. That is current fact. However, to use current realities to dictate what might someday be possible is closed minded. It is currently true that a commercial aircraft can take off, fly to its destination, and land using only the auto-pilot. This is fact. Do I think a blind person could at this time fly a plane competently? No. Because a certified trained pilot must be able to intervene if circumstances obviate the use of the auto-pilot. Now, do I think a blind person might someday be able to fly and be certified? I don't know, but I will not say it will never be possible. Hell, they are already using experimental fully automated, non human controlled drones. Ten years ago I would have never thought a driverless car would be possible, but they obviously are both possible and likely to come to market within the next decade. So, I am not prepared to say never. There are in fact already blind doctors. No not surgeons, but psychiatrists who are trained and empowered to give shots, ECT treatments, and many other procedures. I would have no problem submitting to the care of such a doctor.
Perhaps my truck loading experience is small time in your mind, but it was professional, I got paid, it was a job. That's what I thought we were actually discussing.
Okay. There's some reading communication that's not happening here. There are also some points that are being selectively ignored, forgotten or twisted in order to fuel personal attacks. Now listen up. I'm going to spell out the stance I have had from the beginning of this discussion. If you can look your own mistakes in the face and reread the thread, you will see that I've actually said all of those things before. But I'm going to say them again, and put them all in context.
1. Disabled people do not have the same capabilities as fully able people. The differences might not be large, and they certainly aren't as large as some able people think they are, but they exist, and there's no point denying them or trying to shove them under the rug.
2. Those shortfalls mean that certain jobs are thus far not possible, while others would be much more difficult.
3. As such, whether you're able or disabled, if you come across a disabled professional whose disability might interfere with their ability to do their job, particularly but not solely where it concerns your own safety, it is well within your rights, if the situation allows for it, to ask questions to determine if that disabled person's competency should act as due cause not to engage their services.
4. Those questions should be thorough but polite. What we do not need to do, for any reason, is make the disabled person feel badgered. They're going to get these questions sometimes whether they like it or not, and the appropriate thing to do is to be good about it so that we do not unduly add to their stress. This does not mean we have to tiptoe; it means that we should be reasonable human beings. We should not be belligerent, aggressive or rude. We should ask questions with the expectation of probably learning something new, with open minds to the idea that their success might very well be outside our realm of knowledge.
5. If the answering of the questions you asked has not convinced you of your safety or of the professional's suitability, there is nothing wrong with refusing their services. It is hoped that that professional would have given you reason to trust their skills, but such is by no means always the case. Nobody wins out in the end if they are asked to trust their safety to someone whose competency has been seriously thrown into doubt.
Now, a couple more points:
1. At no point did I say that others cannot ask questions while I can. What I did say was that others (including myself, of course) should not be overly rude in so doing.
2. This one's for you, Chelsea. I never actually suggested that we're all equal, and that we should just inherently trust things we aren't sure of.
3. The personal attacks, the excessive swearing, the taking-up of ridiculous epithets like Saint Gregg and the religious references make your stances look emotionally driven and desperate, as if you are trying to cover up the fact that you know damn well that you haven't a platform to stand on anymore. My own personal attacks, such as they are, are something for which I will apologize. I intensely dislike it when people willfully misuse, misrepresent or ignore the points I'm trying to make in favour of their own agenda. I find this rude, unpleasant and a strong indicator of a person who has run out of options in a debate they know they're losing. But that is a reason, not an excuse, for my own behaviour. Put bluntly, the things I've seen made me lose my temper a bit.
Now, with all that said, I urge any of you who has conflicting evidence to bring it forward. Do it by using quotes, if you please...or, if you can't be bothered doing that, don't bother at all. If you think you can quote me actually going directly against anything I've said directly in this message, go ahead and try. If you can't - and I'm quite sure you can't, because I know the stance I've held since the beginning of this discussion - then kindly stop your attacking and your flailing, and just admit that you've misconstrued the facts in your favour.
Now you're just lying Gregg, that's not becoming. You did not say that you feel
we should be polite. What you said was that I was being discriminatory and
prejudiced. That is not the same thing.
So Pasco, since I specifically said operate, not council or advice or give
psychiatric help to, I said operate, and you also said it was discriminatory for
me to say that I would not let a blind person operate on me. So, is it
discrimination or is it understandable caution? You can't have it be both. If you
want to deal in specifics, lets deal in specifics. Is it discriminatory for me to say
that I would not let a blind surgeon remove my appendix? Is that specific
enough for your weak argument style?
Nope, not a lie. I haven't lied once in this thread. You've misunderstood. Seems to be a common theme, unfortunately.
You haven't even done the appropriate thing and backed up your claim that I'm lying with any demonstrable facts, so I'll just head you off at the pass, shall I?
If you decide that your assumptions trump someone else's qualification, that is a form of prejudice. You are deciding for yourself that your opinion is superior to their experience, and you are denying them the ability to serve you in so doing.
This doesn't make you a mean and hateful and spiteful person, but it does mean you are guilty of prejudicial treatment.
If you do this without even bothering to investigate the provider's credentials, it's more prejudicial than if you do investigate and simply find that the provider cannot demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt why you should trust them. The former is prejudice based on assumption. The latter is caution and judgment.
You'll note how in my last message I stuck to the premise that if you've got a disabled person offering a service for which their disability might be a problem, the best thing to do is to investigate. This may be the best thing, but it is not the only thing, quite obviously. I did not, in that post, talk about people who refuse to even give the person a chance, and so the angle of prejudice didn't even come up.
Thus, logically speaking, I cannot be lying because I was not, and am not, contradicting anything I had said before.
But just so we're clear: yes, I think that not asking, assuming you know best without checking, is a form of prejudice because it means your disabled service provider gets the shaft without an honest hearing, without respect to their actual capabilities and qualifications. That's prejudicial as hell.
What is not prejudicial, however, is when you do investigate, and decide that you have legitimate concerns, and decide to go with someone else. Well technically, it's still prejudicial (you are still choosing one person over another to the latter's detriment) but it is not so negatively stigmatized. If you investigate and decide that it's not worth the risk, then as far as I'm concerned that's all that can be expected.
If we expect the sighted, who often don't understand what we can do, to approach us with a fairly open mind, to accept that they might even learn from us, then surely we should do the same thing wherever possible. This is why I advocate for respectful inquiry.
There. I think that pretty much sums things up. No more attacks. No more accusations. No more misunderstandings. Put frankly, if you don't get it now, then I've done all I can do, and the fault is squarely on your shoulders. I take no responsibility from here regarding your ignorance; if it's willful, I can't make you discard it.
I quote you Gregg, "Those of you who wouldn't let a blind doctor give you a
needle are doing exactly what Bill says you're doing. You're judging, and you're
ignorant in the bargain." And what exactly was it that Bill said we were doing
which you agreed with? I quote Bill, "yes, you are all showing prejudice to a
degree." Now then, am I to believe that you had a slight typo Gregg, and
misspelled impolite as judging?
As I said, we are all showing prejudice to a degree.
If you had an open mind and asked questions and still concluded it wasn't right for you, then technically you're still showing a little prejudice, but you have reason for it. Again, the nasty ugly label attached to prejudice is not always valid. You are still choosing one person over another because of a disability.
If you're doing it without looking, because you can't be bothered, then you're showing even more prejudice. You're saying that your viewpoint on the safety of a person, and their qualifications, takes precedence over all else. It amounts to "I don't care what you say, I'm right, damn it, and I get to choose for myself". Well, yes, you do get to choose for yourself, but if you won't even give someone the time of day because of a disability they have, then you're showing greater prejudice and should own as much. Don't get all twisted up because someone has the balls to call a spade a spade.
If you take the statement I made in context - and remember, kids, context is important - you will also understand that I was talking about people refusing to give blind doctors a chance without even attempting to talk to them/have an open mind. I was not saying that anyone who categorically refuses to accept services from a disabled person is a monster, full stop, no exceptions. I was saying that people who do so without checking into it are ignorant, and in a lot of ways they are. They're ignorant in the way some sighted people are about blindness. And ignorance in itself is not a crime. It's something we all possess to one degree or another. The question, to my way of thinking, is what one chooses to do about one's ignorance. Maybe you don't care that you're shutting someone out, and thus your ignorance in that area has no bearing on you. In which case, I will once again cite what I said previously about the struggle being hard enough already, thank you very much. But if one is ignorant, then chooses to try and enlighten themselves, then that's an awfully good start.
To sum this up really neatly: you aren't actually proving that I lied, or that I was wrong. All you're proving is that you can take pieces out of something I said, frame them in a certain way and make it look like I'm backpedalling. This is not a viable defense of your earlier attacks and platform, and does not in any way support the conclusions you've made. All it does is present the ultimate grasping-at-straws example of this entire thread thus far...and that's saying something, because I've seen a few extremely stretchy attempts already from various people.
Is that really the best you can do?
Oh, so now you were using the nice, innocent version of one of the most
sensitive terms in the english language. I'm quite sure. It couldn't possibly be
that you got caught in your lie and are now being defensive. Couldn't possibly
be that you had forgotten you said that, and are now trying to back paddle. of
course, it has to be that you used a term in its little known and seldom used
connotation, in a manner which gave you a bevy of other terms you could have
used, and in a way that makes your point utterly pointless. If you're gonna try
to blow smoke up my ass Gregg, you could at least be more subtle about it.
Okay. So first you attack me personally, and misconstrue almost every point I made. Then you accuse me of being a hypocrite. Then you accuse me of lying. Then you try and quote something where my use of the word prejudice will somehow unhinge my whole stance.
Guess what? I dismantled everything else, and I don't even have to bother taking this apart. You've stooped to an argument which, if you boil it down, basically says "No one uses the word that may, so you didn't use the word that way". Funny thing about that? I happen to know the language I speak fairly well, and that includes meanings of words I use.
If all you can do is try to tell me which definition of a word I intended to make use of, then you really have lost. You can't call me a hypocrite anymore, because it doesn't stick, and never did. Your personal attacks just make you look foolish, so thanks for stopping those. You can't call me a liar, because I'm not even sure what you think I lied about. And you sure as hell can't justify any arguments, assumptions, attacks or further discussion on this subject by attempting to impugn my word use.
What's next? Are you going to try and invalidate my stance because I own a cat? Or because I'm white? Or because my name has five letters? How low will you go?
OK guys, take notes from Greg:
1. Liars forget the lies they tell.
2. Those same liars will do the very same things that they tell others are *bad* arguments, logic, personal attacks on others, ETC.
Note: those notes as I called them, were sarcasm of course. Because we all know that when Greg, pascow and anyone else for that matter, cannot explain themselves in a realistic way, the above notes I mentioned are what they cling to because they have nothing better to say. In simpler terms, they don't know any better.
Now, onto what we're really discussing: it's clear that being a truck driver or doctor to the full extent that sighted people can, is not possible. Greg and pascow finally admitted this fact after Cody, myself and Wayne have tryed to get the two of them to answer that question for a while now. Hence, why I made reference to Pascow and Greg having five-year-old mentalities: they cannot argue with logic but instead (as Greg even said himself in his recent posts to this topic) they both have allowed this discussion to make them lose their tempers. Pascow does not have to have said he's lost his temper based off things that have been said on this topic as Greg did because we have consistently seen how the same thing can be applied to him based off of the stance he's taken throughout this entire topic. Meaning that while Cody, myself and Wayne have been strongly against saying that a blind person should be able to fly us just because it *might* be possible to do so, Greg and Pascow continually maintain that that's a wrong way of thinking...unless it's either or both of them who thinks that. Clearly though, no matter how much I, or Cody or Wayne says that we wouldn't be belligerent in our interactions with people, Greg will never be able to comprehend that fact. Because he sees us as being belligerent, simply because he doesn't like the stance that we're taking.
Chelsea,
Note how your last post doesn't actually contain anything in it but opinion? You haven't actually demonstrated anything. You're sounding a great deal like a parrot. And since the person you're trying to parrot already had his platform crumble, you're just quacking at this point.
Prove to me that I lied. Prove it. Don't just say it. Do this, and I will own it and apologize.
Demonstrate to me where I have been hypocritical. With proof, mind you. Give me quotes that demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that I have been hypocritical, outside the fact that I have used some personal attacks at times when I have had my temper get in the way a bit. I have already owned this and apologized for it. The same cannot be said of people who have personally attacked me in far more violent fashion than I've ever been guilty of in this thread. If you can demonstrate that my arguments and stance are hypocritical, with proof, then I will own it. Don't just state that it's true and let that stand; it doesn't work that way. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.
Prove that I actually held the stances you claimed I gave up on. Demonstrate, with proof, that I actually stated that we were all perfectly equal in our abilities, regardless of our disability. Prove that I said that everyone should be perfectly willing to accept a disabled professional at face value and without any verification whatsoever. If you can't prove that I said and did these things, then you can't prove that I was arguing the points you knocked down. You're setting up straw men, claiming that I endorsed them, and essentially trying to make me look silly. The only one looking silly here is you, because you were the ones who put the straw man there in the first place.
So that's your challenge. Bring proof that I did the things you're claiming. If you can do that, then you have a reason to argue, and a stance to espouse. Fail, and you're just blowing hot air. The onus is squarely on you. You want to make accusations? Fine. Burden of proof rests with you.
Good luck. Because I've reread this thread, and I know the proof isn't there. But have fun trying to fabricate something and make it stick.
Secondary to the issue of proof is one thing I would like to clear up:
There are good ways and bad ways to ask questions. I have maintained from the start that if you approach the questions politely, or at least not rudely, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. The issue I took, and still take, is that the "you can't do this. What are you talking about? You're gonna have to convince me" sort of stance, if put across in a certain way, will come out sounding belligerent. This does not mean that I think Cody is guaranteed to be this way. This does not mean that Chelsea is guaranteed to be this way. It means nothing more, and nothing less, than this: based on your word choice in this thread, it is a concern I raised, and that's it. I would hope that you, as human beings who understand the struggle we all go through on a daily basis trying to prove ourselves to people, would remember that how you come across really and truly does matter. Take it as a caution, rather than as an indictment. You haven't even done it yet; how could I possibly presume to call a nonexistent thing proof of belligerence? There's a really, really, really big word that I've thrown around a lot when talking about conditional statements. In fact, the word essentially defines the conditional statement. The word is "if". As in, "if you do this, youre belligerence is counterproductive". There is no statement of accusation in this, beyond the implication that word choice already in evidence might inform word use in the future. Don't like that? Tough. If you can't stand having your statements challenged, don't make statements in public. But I'm sure that's not the issue.
The point here is a simple one. I have never implied that anyone is guaranteed to be counterproductive, and I have not even come close to saying that rejecting the services of a disabled professional, all by itself, constitutes rudeness or unacceptable prejudice. These are assumptions you made, and they were wrong. The best thing to do now is realize that you've made some insupportable assumptions, maybe even apologize for needless personal attacks, and move on. This is making all of us, self included most likely, look rather ridiculous.
This time, I am well and truly finished. If you want to discuss this with me further for some reason, get hold of me privately. There is only so long I'm going to sit here beating this into the ground, and now I can't possibly see even a shred of productive conversation that can result. The burden of proof I placed on you is essentially rhetorical; you probably wouldn't honour it anyway, but even if you tried, you'd find yourself lacking ammunition.
Well, Chelsea, that last post of yours is not worth a reply.
Cody, five year old Bill here. There is a flaw in your chain of logic about blind surgeons. As there currently are no blind surgeons, you do not have the opportunity to submit to their care. So, saying you won't let a blind surgeon operate on you is like if you refuse to ride a unicorn. Now, let's imagine that at some point a blind person could do surgery through whatever innovations in technology or methodology, and that blind person was duly certified to do surgery. In such case, if you still refused to accept that surgeon solely on the basis of the blindness, then that is indeed prejudicial. Many doctors are not surgeons. If a sighted Psychiatrist wanted to do surgery on me and was not a certified surgeon, I wouldn't permit that either. So, yes, I would allow a blind surgeon to operate on me, because to be classified as a sergeon, they would have had to be certified and trained to do the work.
Gregg, it is hypocritical to say in one post that I am being judgy and
preudiced to say that I wouldn't let a pilot fly me anywhere or let a surgeon
operate on me, and then in another post say that you would have questions that
you would insist on having answered before you let a blind pilot fly you
anywhere. Either A, you're being precisely as judgy and prejudiced as I am, or
you're being hypocritical. I suspect its the first, which is why you've
continuously backstepped throughout this entire post. First I'm being judgy,
period. Then I'm being biligerent, but you understand since you'd ask questions
too. Then, well, no blind people can't do all jobs, but I"m still being judgy. Then,
I'm just being impolite and you would be nice about it when asking questions. it
went from being a discussion about whether or not its possible. To whether or
not we should have our pinkies up when asking questions. You kept backsliding,
which is your best and most common tactic because you can't seem to actually
stick to anything. as for your lying, you lied because you said that you never
said I was being prejudiced, you said I was being impolite, which is a lie, and I
quoted you as saying it. You agreed with Bill, who specifically used the word
prejudiced. Which makes your post about how you didn't mean prejudiced in
that way even more funny because you weren't even the one who used the
word, Bill was. You used judgy and ignorant in agreeing with Bill. So you
couldn't possibly have meant prejudiced in the way you said because you didn't
even use the god damn word. You're so desperate to backstep and not actually
hold to one position that you've forgotten what positions you've even held. You
can't stand the thought of having anything soil your perfect reputation, that you
can't even stand in one place and face anything. You always mince backward
like a canadian ballerina; that's assuming you can even make your point
through all your annoying blustering, but that's a story for a different post. You
at least didn't do that here.
Bill, there actually was a blind surgeon, before there was really such thing as
licensing and all that good stuff. And, had I been alive at the time and had the
lung problems he was famous for, and I use this word losely, curing, I would not
have gone to him. So your argument, though seemingly good, is actually false.
Its true for this moment in time, but not always. You were simply ignorant of
that fact, which is excusable. If, for some reason, that historical example
doesn't meet with your approval, there is also the student, I believe from
florida, who went through medical school using a specially programmed
machine that played music to tell him different things. I wouldn't let him
operate on me either, even to put in a canula or anything like that, even with his
musical gadget. Because I've had my screen reader fail me too many times to
trust some homemade jerry rigged gismo. So again, sorry, but you're simply
wrong.
Cody, I was indeed unaware of the historic person you speak of. I'll have to look that up. It doesn't change the flaw in your logic though. Since, I assume this historic person practiced at a time when you were not around. We are speaking of now. These days a surgeon must be legally certified to practice. In the past, this was not so as you know. Buyer beware would apply to all doctors of an earlier time. A person just claiming to be a surgeon today would not be permitted to practice and could not document fitness. So, there is no legally certified blind surgeon for you to object to. Now medicine in history is another whole can of worms. LOL
That depends on how willing you are to be flexible with the word operate
Pasco, but mostly yes. I direct you to my second example for that.
Well, I've admitted I'm prejudiced, closed minded or whatever.
I'm a realist. I accept the fact I am limited in some things.
I’m not going to even ask these questions of a blind pilot, surgeon, or whatever, because logic tells me this is not a good thing for them to be doing.
As Cody points out, if you must use some special technology that is liable to fail, and you have no backup resources on a dangerous job, it just isn’t smart, safe, or wise.
If the radio and everything else fails on a plane and that plane is perfectly fine to fly and working wonderfully, you can fly it safely if you can see where the hell you’re going. Blind, you don’t even have an idea if you’re flying in to the ground or up to high.
You can’t see approaching air craft.
I could go on and on.
We all of us that respect limitations are only using these things as examples of limitations.
At this point, I’ll go so far as to suggest if a blind person refuses to accept limitations, and pushes their way in to a job, or tries to do a job they really shouldn’t legally, or illegally if a foolish person.
I don’t want to have a foolish person responsible for my safety.
These people are risk takers. That is fine if it doesn’t involve lives.
Even a seeing person that has no skills at flying a plane has a better chance of getting it safely on the ground over someone that can’t see who’s been a pilot but has lost the ability to see.
However, you that refuse to accept you have limitations won’t be moved. I understand this.
To Greg and pascow, by all means feel free to let a blind surgeon or other blind doctor operate on you...just don't come to us whining about the damage that might happen or that you were warned by us as the exact reason why we'd never allow a blind doctor to operate on us. He/she got their medical license, big whoop. He/she may be qualified in your eyes to operate on people, but most likely Cody and I will not be one of those people--that is not prejudice for Cody and I to have this stance. It's simply that we value our lives probably more than we value most things in the world, and Greg and Pascow take an idealistic stance about whether a blind doctor might ever treat them or how a blind pilot might fly them somewhere someday in the future. As I've explained my stance before, I'll repeat it one more time since Greg could not seem to comprehend what it was. My stance is that I value my life so much so that I more than likely would never let a blind person in the medical field touch me. If he/she gave me a good enough explanation of why I should let them along with how he/she would plan to complete the task at hand, I *might* consider letting him/her touch me. That being said, and again as I've already said, this does not mean that I would call the person ugly names, use four letter words or any other thing that Greg has been trying to attach to Cody and I throughout this discussion. I know how to act like an adult, and hopefully Greg does too. Hopefully his temper won't continue to get the best of him. It shouldn't, because he doesn't know Cody, Wayne or I in person so why the emotional investment, I have no clue.
Good points Wayne. Others are completely missing the point that you, Cody and I would not want to endanger our lives by letting a blind person in the medical field touch us for a medical reason, or a blind pilot fly us on an airplane. Even though I would ask a blind person questions if I ever encountered a situation in real life like the one we're discussing, I would only do that as a curtesy to him/her. As I've said, I more than likely would choose the safety for both of us, which would be to not let them treat me or fly me anywhere. Hell, I may even write a letter to their superiors telling them that as a blind person myself, I think the blind pilot or blind medical person is jeopardizing the health of not only him or herself, but anyone who allows themselves to be treated by said person.
Honestly, I think that is one important aspect that is impossible to replicate
here. Its all well and good for Gregg to sit in his comfy armchair, with no
licensed blind pilots in existence and say "oh, yeah, I'd definitely let a blind guy
fly me." Its a completely different thing for him to actually strap himself into the
seat of a plane and let it take off, knowing there is a totally blind guy at the
stick. Its all well and good for him to sit at home, perfectly safe with no illnesses
and say that he'd definitely let a blind surgeon operate on him. Its completely
different to actually be in pain in a hospital and be desperate for the best care
possible. I'd be willing to put money on Gregg high and mighty stance
absolutely crumbling when the rubber meets the road. Wayne chelsea and I just
skip over the egotistical saintism and go straight to the realistic results.
And I speak from personal experience as someone whose had to have emergency brain surgery as well as numerous other surgeries and I would never in a million years let a blind surgeon of any kind operate on me. Call me prejudice or whatever you choose; at least I place the safety of myself and the world, above another blind person's unrealistic, head-up-in-the-clouds view of how things should be.
If I understood you Cody without yet having researched the case, your second example was experimental? That is not the same as a certification. In the medical field, experimental methods and treatments are used all the time on volunteers. I understand as you, Chelsea, and Wayne, ad nauseum, have made it clear you would never be that volunteer. Fine. Much of the progress we've made in medicine depends on experimentation. Luckily for you, it is voluntary not mandatory.
Wayne, there is one flaw in your argument about equipment failing. That is a problem for anyone, blind or sighted, using advanced technology. My wife just had eye surgery. They used a machine to make the cuts and insert the lens based on carefully mapped coordinates established by technicians, not doctors, in advance of the surgery. Her surgery got delayed because the machine was malfunctioning. The machine was being operated by a sighted surgeon, of course, and he had to stop because the machine failed. These machines self diagnose constantly and will not function if the diagnostic fails. The patient was not harmed. Yet, that sighted doctor could not operate because the machine failed. We all depend on technology to function. In life and death situations like planes and surgery, it is designed to do no harm if failure occurs. But I do understand your point, and you have the right to make those choices for yourself.
And as Chelsea invited, I have the right to say that your stances are prejudicial. Fine, we all understand one another now.
No Pasco, it wasn't experiemental. Granted, he was a student, but he was still
a real blind person putting a real tube, down the real throat of a real patient in
real time using a real gismo.
Oh, are you talking about intubation? Well, that is done by touch by all doctors. Just saying.
The mechanical part of it is, but there is some sight to it too, which is why he
needs the musical gismo.
I'm with Gregg on this. I'll say no more other than I've seen some really off-putting behaviour on this thread. As a blind person, and as a blind woman I struggle to be viewed as an equal. I don't need that from my own community, and if people can't respect that those of us who go ahead and do something for the first time, who break down barriers might actually know more, you don't deserve my time.
I may not be one of those blind people. I may not be the person who gets a job no blind person has ever done before. But when someone has, I commit to listening, to understanding and to respecting that they are an authority, not me.
Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves, and I can't help feeling sick when I see you talking about justice and pretending to fight for it. Shallow words.
I think you're confusing equality and similarity Holly.
I'm not confusing anything Cody. However I have realised that there are people I just don't need to interact with, which I suppose at least is one positive I can take from this board.
I think I agree with the spirit of the naysayers, if not the delivery. I'd have to be pretty comfortable with someone in charge of my safety who was doing a job in which sight plays an vital role. I'd say that pilots and many areas of the medical world would fall under that category. When it is our safety, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to be sure that safety is not jepordized unnecessarily. Being a complete anus dragon about it is unnecessary, but asking reasonable questions to gain certainty is not.
Also, equality, being treated fairly in life, and things that are realistic are not the same.
That's what I meant when I said that Holly was confusing equality and
similarity. We, as blind people, have the right to get a job. we have the right to
fight for those jobs, and be held to the same standards as a sighted person. We
should not be condemned to joblessness because people assume we can't do
something. WE do not have the right to not prove that we can do it. Which is
what we're talking about here. We're saying that we would want proof that a
person can do something to the same extent as a sighted person. As things are
now, I don't think the blind people can be as good a surgeon, or a good enough
surgeon, as a sighted person. We have limitations. They're shrinking, but we
still have them. wE have the right, within those limitations, to equality. We do
not have the right to extend those limitations to the level of similarity. We have
the right to jobs, we do not have the right to the same jobs.
Excellent. Then this has all been resolved in a nice little package ... 350 posts in.
If only.
Exactly. Key words here are "if only."
Oh, and just because I feel like giving another real life example that blind people *cannot* do anything, I recently received a water filter as a gift. I tried to contact the company it was bought from yesterday because I'm having an issue with it. Well unfortunately for me, because I'm totally blind and cannot operate the company's website the same way a sighted person can (thanks to all the graphics) I had to get a sighted friend to do the task of contacting this company for me. In other words, I had a limitation because of my nonexistent eyesight.
I believe the debate on this board topic is doing a really good job at demonstrating why it is so difficult for blind people to become employed. There is one post on here that states:
We should not be condemned to joblessness because people assume we can't do something.
However, it appears to me there are a number of people on here who keep looking for reasons why a blind person cannot do a job rather than give a blind person the chance to perform a job. As long as people have this attitude about what blind people cannot do rather than what blind people can do, it will always be difficult for a blind person to find a job.
At this point in time I do not believe technology has advanced enough for a blind person to become a pilot. However, as technology advances, perhaps someday a blind person could be hired to be a pilot. Since there are standards any person must be able to meet as a pilot, if a person is hired as a pilot, this means they have found a way to meet the standards that are required for this job as set forth by others within the field of aviation.
However, I do not understand why it would not be possible for a blind person to become a doctor or a surgeon. If you believe a blind person is not capable of becoming a surgeon, then does this mean you also believe a blind student cannot successfully participate in dissections in biology class? If you believe a blind person is not capable of performing a job that requires the use of a sharp knife, does this mean you believe a blind person is not capable of becoming a chef as well? And if you believe a blind person is not capable of being able to perform a task that requires the use of a sharp knife, do you tell the wait staff at a restaurant to cut up your stake before they serve it to you? As I listen to people on here protest against a blind person operating on them, what I hear is how a blind person does not have the capacity to use sharp knives in a safe manner.
As for not being able to provide basic medical care as a blind person, I wonder what blind parents do when their child becomes sick or injured. Does a blind parent need to turn to someone who is sighted the moment their child becomes sick or injured? Is there no way for a blind parent to treat their sick or injured child on their own without the assistance of a sighted person? It seems to me that providing basic medical care is part of being a parent. So if blind people cannot provide basic medical care, does this mean blind people cannot perform the role of a parent as well? I feel like the assumptions people are making about blind people not being able to provide basic medical care are the same assumptions sighted people use to argue why blind people are not fit to be parents.
So are you a blind person who has the capacity to cut their own stake during dinner? Are you a blind person who has the capacity to chop vegetables while preparing meals? Are you a blind person who has the capacity to care for children as a parent? These are all things that other people believe blind people do not have the capacity to do.
A live human is not a high school biology experiment is not a steak. Too much is at stake in the first case and too much precision is required. I believe I've correctly staked out the boundary between these two uses for sharp implements.
And it's not the end of the world if someone other than me cuts my steak.
"At this point in time I do not believe technology has advanced enough for a blind person to become a pilot. However, as technology advances, perhaps someday a blind person could be hired to be a pilot. Since there are standards any person must be able to meet as a pilot, if a person is hired as a pilot, this means they have found a way to meet the standards that are required for this job as set forth by others within the field of aviation."
Yes, that.
Just because something isn't possible at this very second, doesn't mean it can never be. It doesn't mean that students who want to pursue a career shouldn't be exploring all of their options. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't try and find a way around the perceived problems.
Because it's only by doing so that things will change.
If we sit at home and say we will never be able to do x and y, then there's absolutely no reason to try and make it possible. But if we say hey maybe I can do this thing, and invest time in looking critically at the potential problems with it and coming up with solutions we might actually change something.
That's what I, and I believe people like Bill and Gregg have been trying to say. Something might not be possible right now, but if a blind person finds a way to make it so, and gets that job I will afford them the same respect I would a sighted person working in the field.
So yes, if, in a few years a blind person gets a job as a pilot then I would let them fly me. Because if they've found a way around the problems that arise as a result of their blindness and have successfully gained employment I would trust their skills and qualifications.
Apply my last comment to surgeon and any of the other jobs some of you seem to refuse to believe a blind person could do. If they've found a way, and gotten the job then I'm going to believe they can, as I do with any other qualified professional.
That's a whole lot of ifs and whens. I think the major difference is that I'm
talking about right now, and not five years down the road. Hell, in a matter of a
relative few years we'll probably have robotic surgeons anyway. Most of these
jobs will be taken over by computer. But I don't feel its either helpful or possible
to accurately debate about what may or may not happen. Yes, in the future it
may be possible, but to make that argument you have to admit that in the
present it is not possible. So you've agreed with us. There are jobs, right now,
that blind people cannot do. So, thanks for agreeing with us.
Thanks guys, for finally admitting what Cody and I "add nausium" as you all have said, have been saying all along. While you sit around and keep saying "someday this might be possible" Cody and I will keep building the bridges for blind people that people like you act like we don't need to build. Do you guys feel good, by telling blind people that they don't have limitations? Cause if so, I'm sorry to know that you have such sad and pathetic lives as to mislead blind people, rather than encouraging them to reach within their limits to achieve real success at something in the world.
No it is not the end of the world if you have to have someone else cut your steak for you. However, it does indicate you could do more than you are now doing. You are accepting being less competent than you might be. But that is your choice.
As to Cody and Chelsea, you are both just arguing to argue. Never grant anyone else a point, by all means be right even if in that gloating you are missing the obvious point. It is more important to you both to be right, than to discuss and possibly have your horizons expanded. Not worth arguing with either of you on this any longer.
No, they are facing reality in the here and the now. This is what is now, not later.
Basic medical care can be handled by a blind parent. We are talking basic medical care however.
Because you can handle sharp knives doesn't qualify you to perform surgery. Smile.
I can drive, and I mean do it, should I be given a driver’s license?
I have said that blind people should strive, but when they are doing so, they need to exercise for realistic boundaries.
One of the keys for success is Bing able to bring it about. Now, if you are a scientist, or a researcher, you are testing ideas, but these aren’t always successful. You aren’t trying to feed your family, or get yourself in to a financial place you can feed yourself unless that is your job.
If a blind person takes on something that isn’t realistic from jump street to earn a living, 99% of the time they aren’t going to earn it.
I could technically pass a driver’s test. I can do the written and with someone guiding me, drive the car.
So, technically I’ve gotten around what it takes to receive that license. Do you want to take a ride with me alone just you and me?
I suspect we might make it as far as the corner, maybe a few blocks, before we run in to something.
I’m technically qualified, right?There is no reason I shouldn’t be allowed to apply for a job driving a city bus. I can even get the class II license in the manner I described.
I’m a good carpenter. I can use power tools, saws, measure, build. Do you think I should apply for a job in construction where I am required to work on a skyscraper project?
I understand what the other side is getting at, but it just isn’t realistic, and when you are needing to eat, that is what will be required.
I think one thing that is missing from a lot of people's ideals about blindness
is the idea of stepping stones. I believe as strongly as everyone else that blind
people can do more than they believe, and definitely more than sighted people
think we can. I think that technology and progress will continue to erase our
differences. Honestly, I believe that one day there will be no blind people
because someone will perfect a technology that allows people to regrow eyes.
But that is not today. yes, we need to get to that place, but we can't jump to
that place. We're trying to get to an island, and we can't get there by flying. wE
have to build a bridge, and to build a bridge, you go plank by plank. Lets lay
down plans before we start talking about what it will be like on the island. We're
not there yet.
Right now, if the popular numbers are anything to be believed, we have some
seventy percent unemplyment rate in the blind community. That isn't going to
be fixed by us saying that they should try to be surgeons. Sure, one day it will,
but who cares what will be possible one day? we have bills to pay now? How
about we say, here's a computer, or here's a hammer, or here's a pen factory.
Lets get us jobs at all, before we start shooting for the stars. You gotta lay down
those planks before we can worry about the island we're working toward. Once
we have an unemployment rate around seven percent, rather than seventy,
then we can start talking about equality of opportunity and sameness of
opportunity. wE're still learning to crawl, you guys can't expect us to be running
marathons tomorrow.
And in the end (please let it be an end) that's really what this all boils down to. Current status quo is simple: there are no blind surgeons or pilots. Thus, no successful representations to speak of. Could technology help that one day? sure, why not. But it isn't there yet. There's hope, hard work and belief to inspire us to be more than society believes us capable. But then there is practicality as a result of currently existing technology as well. If and when, as previously stated. You show me a blind surgeon or pilot, and I'll shake their hand, congratulate them on being awesome, and ask how they managed to pull it off. Untill then, this is just another what if scenario.
Pasco, I'm sorry to know that you don't want to expand your horizons and try realism on for size. Hopefully you'll have an experience someday that shows you the importance of changing your idealistic views to ones that are more suitable for living in a world that is made for sighted people. Because really, it's about living in the here and now, not fantasizing about a future that may never come.
Wayne, it is interesting you refer to us as the other side. I kind of thought that as blind people trying to get ahead and figure things out we were all on the same side in the end.
Chelsea: I am 64 years old. I have money enough that I have retired in comfort. I fought the good fight getting training and finding employment. I progressed from entry level to senior management in this sighted world. So don't lecture me about being realistic. I have done much that others, including some blind people, believed I could not. I have also had my failures for that is life. My mantra has always been Tenacity, Optimism, Acceptance. In other words, fight for what you believe, do not give up. Be optimistic about your goals and hopes, but accept reality, do what is necessary to succeed and, sometimes realize that what you hope for will not come to be. Do not feel sorry for me. I am a happy guy who has enjoyed my life. You, seem forever angry though. I hope your philosophy gets you in life as far as you want.
Other side of this debate Pasco, not the other side of the blind community.
Age is just a number, pasco. I too have done things that many blind people have not done, but that's neither here nor there. For the record though, maybe you should try getting to know me before randomly attaching things to me just because the things I say make you angry. As I've said on other topics, my intent is never to piss anyone off. I'm actually quite a likeable and well-rounded person, which you'd find out if you actually got to know me instead of allowing my words to upset you. Most times I have a way of saying things that people around here don't like, but I wouldn't say anything if I didn't believe that what I had to say wasn't valuable. That is exactly why I keep posting to this topic: because I believe that other blind people should believe in their capabilities, but that they should believe in them in a way that is realistic for themselves and society, not unsafe to themselves or society. There is a huge difference between the two.
Chelsea, you called me a five year old or like a five year old. You said I needed to understand reality in this sighted world. I am paraphrasing here. Those are not ways to speak to a person if you want them to get to know you and like you. They are hostile and insulting. And in the case of your second comment about reality in the sighted world, inaccurate as you apparently haven't gotten to know me either. I gave my age to let you know I am not a beginner, and, I was merely enlightening you about my particular life. I have not insulted your intelligence nor anything else about you. I merely observed that you write as if you are angry. So, dear lady, practice what you preach. Reality is important, but who gets to define that reality is just as important. I choose, to the degree possible, to define my reality as I want it rather than what someone else, a sighted person, or you, would define it for me. And though it isn't the complete picture, age does count for something. Experience.
Okay, so earlier on this board topic I was accused at grasping at straws for providing a rather practical job that a blind person could perform within the medical field. However, now I am being accused of not being practical for suggesting that a blind person could become a pilot someday with the advancement of technology. So perhaps there are some people posting to this board topic who simply need to be right, and are not very open to considering the ideas of others.
The problem is the technology isn't available yet Cat.
We are talking today, right now.
This topic needs to either die or move on. Around 70% of us lack jobs but we're wasting time arguing over accommodations which don't exist.
I wonder how much of our problem is due to the fact that people aren't allowed to talk about disability. Both in school and interviews people are forbidden to ask questions about my blindness. Sometimes they aren't even allowed to say the word "blind". Either that, or they're afraid it breaks one of the rules. All the silence means that I can't know what questions they have and they can't know when I'm struggling. Assumptions run wild.
I didn't know this? This actually has happened?
I don't believe we have a law that says they can't talk about your blindness?
I'd agree that if they could, or would, that would help much.
o yeah, this post needs to die. the points have been presented, now all we are doing are complaining about things that can't change right now, and bitchong about comments other people made on a public post that they have the right to make.