Category: the Rant Board
Yesterday while working I was listening to a few promos / podcasts on the net from ATIA to see what people are doing - especially now that I've gotten on here, I've found there's a surprising amount of things you can get out there that simplifies existing stuff for us blind folks. Awesome!
Anyway, someone on there was doing some fitness things, a rag mag of a storybook about it but more important actual stuff you could actually use, like some wire / rope contraption for running laps in your yard. Sounds awesome, right? I mean, better than running full tilt into a hurdle on the local school's track, right? There were other things too such as balls that emitted sound and beeping targets and such, woulda been fun in my misspent youth when throwing darts or whatever - but here's the clincher.
I went on their site at lunch to take a look around. How much does this stuff cost? What all is there? General window shopping / look-around. And ... what have we here?
The following disclaimer on their main store page (I left out their name:
Well if I rant apparently I can't even write fuckin html lol sorry for the closing chars there php is case-sensitive even if html isn't
They're APH. what do you expect? Their main goal is to educate and to provide things to the blind. Why would someone who's not blind or visually-impaired use these products? Admittedly, it's a bit redundant, since it's kind of like saying that wheelchairs are for people who can't walk or stand for long periods of time, but honest, I don't see why you're so upset. They're covering their asses. You know as well as I do how people sue each other over stupid things. They just don't want someone saying "my child ran with that thing and she got hurt. So I'm suing." It's the same reason why, on some sites you'll see a warning about a toy having small parts and being hazardous to young children, or even why you'll sometimes see ridiculous things like "warning may be hot after microwaving" on foods. We all know that little children shouldn't play with potentially dangerous toys without supervision and that things get hot when they're microwaved. Besides, it's not like an individual can't buy from their site and give these things to their children. The only thing here that I can see as being a problem is the parents being fearful that their child could get hurt. But even so, they could purchase the ball or whatever, let the child play supervised, and then leave him/her alone when they feel that he/she is able to handle it solo.
OK to your responses:
They're aph: Well other stores I've bought stuff online dont do stuff like the above notice.
Lawsuits: Sure the usual cover one's ass to protect against another's dumbassery - I get that but the small parts thing is for real. I mean when my daughter was three and younger she put everything in her mouth ... most civilized governments have regulations about all that.
and ... hurting themselves? With a damned ball? Kids play with balls of all sizes all the time. Sure you don't give a superball to a small child, but ... say the blind kid's been playin' with a soccer ball or whatever but now can get one that beeps or blips or whatever, so no more fishing around in tall grass. How's that more dangerous than the ball they used to play with.
As I said, that's just gonna freak out some of the adults, and prevent them from getting access to some of that stuff.
No, it's not normal what they're doing, and if you changed blind to African American (or *Greek*) or any other group you'd get all kinds of responses ... and as I've found last night when looking at other sites, they don't seem to do that ...
I'm not upset with this particular group - I don't even know them or haven't bought from them - it's just the general tendency of agencies to do this shit and for people to lay down like the captain in Shogun and accept the Samurai takin' a big leak on their back. You know damned well if you substituted the terms above with any other target group, there'd be hell to pay.
That's because everyone whines and complains for no reason today. Most things are targed to one group or another. It would be silly to substitute the above groups for the current one in this context, since they'd have no advantages in playing with the ball. But when something like a notetaker is advertised, they often say "this product can help the blind", "this notetaker for the blind", "x is a device which can help the blind and visually-impaired." so what's wrong with that. Admittedly, they went a little overboard in stating that it's only for educational use and only for use with instructors etc. but that was probably the original purpose of such devices. How many things have we adapted or do we use which originally had other uses? If parents can't see passed this and realise that a blind child can play with a ball just as easily as a sighted one, then the problem is with them, not with the website. That's like saying that putting "caution, may break if dropped" on glass would make people avoid buying glass. I've also seen cosmetic items which specifically cater to "ethnic" groups, mostly meaning blacks and Hispanics. I'm sure that I could buy one and use it, but it's mostly meant for them. Sometimes, things say they're specifically for men or women when, in fact, everyone can use them. Examples are colognes, raisors, shaving cream etc. As for small items, of course, can cause a real problem with children, and the warning is well-warranted. But food getting hot in a microwave, peanuts needing to be opened before being eaten and things needing to be plugged in before they can work are crazy. lol Doesn't stop manufacturers from writing it on the labels though.
Never said, or at least didn't intend to say, that the problem was indication it's for the blind. Of course it is; them saying it is just truth in marketing. However, to imply that a basketball from a sports store can be played outside of "a structured environment" (sounds like a politician's word to me), but the beeping ball can't - that's ridiculass.
And yep, there are all sorts of makeup / cologne / other products out there targeted at various groups. But if they're targeted to an African-American, they don't claim the black guy needs a white guy to help him with it ... you're missing the entire point of my original and subsequent post.
All products have target audiences, at least a lot do. But most don't act as though the target group is somehow incompetent of handling themselves with it. It isn't their site, which is why I originally left the name out; it's the tendency. Though as I pointed out, other online stores specifically for either blind or multi disabled or whatever just sell stuff, have their cautionary CYA tales, but no recommendations that little Sambo shouldn't handle this without the good guidance of the Great White Master. They're free, of course, to do whatever they want especially on the web, but just sayin' the implications are what they are, and not because they claim the item is for the blind. Of course it is. You mentioned names so so will I: Another group on there yesterday Independent Living Aids sells tons of stuff I can see uses for and they don't say things like that. And the Blind Mice Mart doesn't do it either; their only notice is that if you purchase from them, funds go to college scholarships; well, how cool is that? That is actually constructive, cool, and kinda makes you wanta buy from them.
There was a time, when Native Americans were subjected to similar thinking: You can or can't do this or that but only with the supervision of the Agent from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Now, they've taken control and have their own tribal leaders and such. Sure there may be problems or whatever, but being owned ain't cool.
I totally get it. And unstructured play? I've always understood that one shouldn't attempt to structure playtime. Supervise it yes, if only to cut down on children getting hurt, but not structure it. That way they can exercise their creativity.
I thought the structured play was a bit strange when I first saw it too, especially because the product I was viewing couldn't cause any harm at all. I don't remember what it was cause it was awhile ago. In any case, I didn't take offense to it and I still can't see how it could seriously lead to trouble. Weird and uncalled for, certainly. But not dangerous. Parents and consumers just have to use their own judgement on what's safe for children to play with on their own and what's not. That said, think of it this way. If several blind children are playing alone and haven't really learned how to use the ball, they could throw it at each other or at something and get hurt/break it. If using the running contraption, when very young, they could get tangled in it or something. Of course, if they learn what they're doing, then the problem can be avoided.
Um? Kids throw balls at each other. Ever played Kill the Doctor or Slogam or whatever? Kinda works that way anyway ...
Never heard of anything like that, no.
I think this only reflects the wider problems that righteous anger, coupled with greed, has created in this country, i.e. law suits.
A woman got millions of dollars in Tn because her son's toy bike did not expicitly say :"do not ride this bike on the highway", he did and got killed. This was an example law suit in my MBA law class, so not one of these "I saw somewhere that someone had heard of a friend of his brothers winning a lot of money because he spilled hot coffee on his crouch at Mickey Ds", even if I have no doubts such a law suit is probably not an urban myth.
Once you have established that manufacturers are responsible for what one should refer to as, commonsense, then you ahve established grounds for law suits on practically every aspect of the product. In this case the manufacutrers are making something for the blind and need to cover their royal behinds by a ridiculous exclaimer. But here is a misconception though that you need extra disclaimer for a blind kid and a toy has to be manufactured as an educational tool, not a toy. My instinct tells me this is justifying a higher price tag and trying to aim it at bigger corporate or institutional purchasers, although I don't know.
So certainly there is some rather distubring aspect of this, especially if the company is supposed to sell products to the blind and be an expert in the field, but much more than that I just feel it's a genuine reflection of consumer labels in general, that have gone so way overboard.
Totally agreed with you on this one, especially about targeting these various groups and even more so, about the high price tag. Most companies will do anything to squeeze every last bit of money they can for us. If something costs $60 for the sighted, it might cost $200 or more for us. Even a ridiculously simple adaptation, such as putting a beeper in a ball, could make the prices go up. It's very sad.
hi,
tot he original post. I definitely get what you mean. the reason the company makes such statements is b/c of their over-arching negative attitudes about blind ppl and blindness itself.
they think we're helpless and we need protection from life because we're blind.
its sad, but many blind people have this same attitude, just like many sighted ppl do.
anyway, my two cents worth.
FYI, for those who don't know, the bit about spilling hot coffee on the crotch at Mickey D's was actually a real lawsuit. It happened about ten or fifteen years ago or something like that. This woman was at a drive-through and she made the mistake of putting the cup between her legs. My guess is she stepped on the gas pedal or something and jarred the cup just enough to spill the coffee all over her. So then she sued the restaurant for not putting a warning on the cup saying "may be hot." Even more outrageous was the fact that she actually won. I only wish Judge Judy had been the presiding judge. She wouldn't have tolerated this woman's crap since the whole thing started because of her lack of common sense.
kind of reminds me of a story I heard once about a lady who folded up a stroller with her child still in it. She apparently won her lawsuit or something and now there is a label or something on strollers that tells you to remove the baby before folding it up. um ... that sounds pretty damn weird to me, but I wouldn't be surprised if it actually happened. Gees, people are stupid sometimes.
Well, as much as we call these things "common sense", which I totally agree with, the law does state that you have to warn consumers about any possible danger your product could cause. On a lot of hair dryers, there is a label that clearly says: "Do not use while sleeping." I don't even want to imagine how the makers of those came to put that label in the instructions.
I agree that a little common sense would save a lot of these things from happening, but apparently, the companies will be held responsible if they assume that everybody who consumes their products will have this common sense.
The dishwasher had some book of instructions. It contained a warning:
Do not put childrenn in dishwasher.
Now, we all know better. But a company must think about liability. Perhaps some stupid parent put their kid in the dishwasher to play, or even as a punishment!
My point is, we must be well armed against the stupidity of the world. You may see a toy that says:
Do not put in mouth.
Well, no shit, but the company needs to protect itself.
I recently bought a USB headset, and in the instructions it said something to the effect of "warning, use of computers may lead to serious disorders." I have no idea what the hell that was about.
as someone has said, things we know are common sense may not be to some people. it sounds crazy to those of us who see it for what it is, but we should always be mindful of that.
To screaming_turtle, apparently, especially with desktops, you are exposed to radiation every time you face the screen, and can therefore eventually get brain cancer, but this is only something I've heard. I've never actually known a real case of it.
Well, they said the same thing about cell phones too, and I think that claim was disproven, so I would imagine this is sort of the same thing.
Well, cell phones and computer screens have also gotten better as our knowledge of radiation damage has increased. Microwaves and television screens also use to be that way.
Anyway, I guess my point is, even though computer screens probably won't harm you anymore, until we're completely doubt free on that, I guess the companies have to put the warning labels there.
Yes but my original points still stand, though this has strayed far:
Why extra warnings for toys sold for the blind. You see no such warnings on a basketball sold by your local sports outlet, and that is the difference. Here, there is *extra* warning on account of being blind. Sell a basketball that way for black kids and see what you get.
We all know of the silly warning labels companies have *had* to put on things, the dishwasher thing being pretty sad especially if a jury bought that in court. However, this is not generic; it's a warning about a particular target audience. How about for you ladies who are so inclined, what if a movie had the label: Should not be watched by women in an unstructured environment, may ccause hysterically emotional reactions.
This board has lost track of the original thought, that not being silly warning labels, but such labels targeted at a particular audience - us. As I said, if what everyone has said is relevant, then all basketballs and other outdoor sporting equipment would have the same labels on them, and they do not.
I believe this is because society at large feels we are a bit slower than sighted folks. It seems they can't help but see us this way.
Yeah, regardless of those blind people who are comparitively few I'll grant, who've managed in their day to become world famous. Ray Charles, Stevy Wonder, Erik Weihenmayer, others that you can name as well as I I'm sure. But even in spite of that society as a whole seems to see us as "a little slow." They probably feel those people got lucky.
It is a shame. Boo hoo hoo, boo hoo hoo. Lol but seriously it sucks.
I do agree with the original poster's vies about targetting more specific warning labels at blind or visually impaired audiences. I think they should have all of the other warning labels that all other companies have to use, and nothing more. I know that probably sound odd for me to say after spending so much space talking about the fact that warning labels have to be in place, so for that, I appologize. Lol.
I think I see what you're trying to say, though. As I stated in another post somewhere, not all stupid people are blind, and not all blind people are stupid, and it would be nice if these particular agencies would see it in the same light.
It still gets me that a blow dryer actually has a warning on it that reads do not use while sleeping. I mean serously. A person who's sleeping probably isn't very likely to actually read the label.
It is based on people's perceptions of the blind. Let's try to prove them wrong.
Amen to the last post.
Let me add to that by repeating what I said in another post:
It is our own fault...sorry but it is. We share the blame.
No, because we aren't a collective.
I'm to blame for what *I* did ... so if I acted like a jerk or whatever, I'm to blame for that.
But not for what another blond-headed, or blind- or short, or male, human being did.
I don't buy any o' that nonsense, because the opposite is never true ... you don't see all this amazing discovery and improvements happening when someone does a positive thing *because* they belong to some artificially-created noncommunity that can't even be classed as a true subgroup since it lacks the ability to reproduce itself, pass on traditions or pretty much anything else you see amongst racial and other groups.
Ah, but if I were to act a certain way, people will think:
"he's blind...oh god...they must all be like that." That is human nature I'm sad to say.
What one person does will affect another.
Then it is that person's fault for choosing to act that way, as well as the person who saw it to assume that kind of behavior with anybody who is blind.
Yes, it is the fault of these people. That's the whole issue.
And since some people don't see it that way, what can we do but teach them that there are some differences among blind people.
but that is like teaching a horse to do needlepoint.
Hahaha!
According to Margorp's thinking then, we should be telling all African-Americans to not eat fried chicken and watermelon, no Latinos should everwear baggy pants or drive a VW, and no women should ever demonstrate too much femininity in the workplace.
After all, it's just normal for people to think these things, so everyone should comply. Oh, and if women don't get treated well on the workplace, or African Americans get denied housing, or Latinos are all deemed undocumented, according to the logical conclusion of Margorp's thinking - it's all their own fault.
Problem is, the most famous Chancellor who would have agreed with this is ... dead, via suicide, and has been since the mid 1940s. Here's the thinking, there's the result. Welcome to it, if ya want it.
Well, let's hope nobody takes as extreme of a standpoint as that....chancelor, then.
You compare me to Hitler? Wow! I never said it was okay...it's just how people (some people) tend to think and we have to be mindful of the facts.
Hitler indeed!