Sunday, 17 March 2019

Red Nose and Comic Relief

Image result for red nose day
ATR posts the view charity and TV telethons like these are unsupported by the proposed beneficiaries after a  newspaper  posted of charitable and celebrity overload and hypocrisy, along with left-wing celebs promoting Jermy Corbyn chapter and verse.  Time for red nose days/comic relief to end?  They aren't funny any more.

Like most with a disability or issue, CR and Red nose days mean nothing at all to us. It is a mainstream view of benevolence/charity and do-gooding that annoys mostly. We saw in the past left-wing celebs promoting political agendas. People like Sting and Bono to Bob Geldof and decided we didn't want to be told by self-indulgent millionaires what others should be doing for us and the antics of red nose day celebs last week were carrying on in the same vein and caused people to turn off and stop donating.

It pretty much mirrors the USA approach where celebs use their exalted position to attack their systems. Of course, to suggest charity is a myth and mostly NOT supported by the people who could benefit causes much angst, how dare we! etc... its a day out for the kids to dress up etc...but it would help if they asked us first, do we want this? 

The media knows there is a groundswell of militant disabled and such and counter it instead by using children, celebs or even animals to push home the message of how deprived/disadvantaged we are, but without accepting access and inclusion requires their participation 365 days a year not twice a year and blaming someone else.  The BBC took more drastic steps and removed the disabled input on their website after considerable pressures were being put to the BBC to stop doing what they were doing on our behalf and without our consent.  They also responded by vetting their own sanitised version of disability output by installing disabled luvvies who wouldn't challenge them.

Whilst this current crop also appeared to be politically left-wing it ignores why deprivation exists and promotes instead the need for lots of money to enable charities to keep us reliant on them because the state has dumped them or removed their care. They don't see the obscurity of that idea.  If they donated the money to lawyers we can employ to ensure our rights, it might be viable and acceptable and a lot less need for charity at all.

As it stands, such celebrities/charities are going for royal recognition for themselves on the back of 'brave disabled people' (Cue vids of poor disabled kids who don't even live here, and not our own poor who don't get 3 meals a day or an education either).   Charity doesn't begin at home because we are alleged to be too wealthy for that to happen.  Tel that to 2m families on the breadline and 2.5m children in poverty.  Obviously, anyone who delves into the realities of care or support or inclusion will know they deprived get less and less of it as the days go by despite these millions being donated nothing changes. 

If celebs want to push politics let them join a political party, and IF they want to help the disadvantaged lobby for their rights instead, do not underpin the national neglect and their own moral and governmental duty by sitting in a bath of baked beans or trotting out celebs past their sell-by date to make the point.

What you may have missed.

The Google transcription app launch.

Why americans should NOT support HB 2137.

E.G does this person reflect you? Here we go again another snowflake alert, this term regarding identities and naming people. It is not for deaf groups or HoH groups or their respective representations and charities to lobby for what we should call ourselves. There is no background to the support for this idea from grassroots.

The entire 'Deaf' area continues to indulge in navel contemplation and which word or term should be or not used for everything when the reality is these lobbies are to enforce the 'Deaf' view of themselves and their cultural ID and the 'Deaf' are the arch promoters of their own stereotype (Sign equals culture etc).. 

Time to fess up why these lobbies operate as they do, and stop including people who adhere not one iota to their 'deafinitions of ID or their view on what people with hearing loss prefer to be called, which is basically a lobbying ploy to enlist hard of hearing or HOH or whatever non signing support is out there to endorse THEM.  In the end such lobbies divide people not unite them.  I don't want to be forever correcting systems who use half a dozen ID approaches to talk to me.

Services for the Deaf and HoH.

The many many youtube awareness videos we see, private and system, vary considerably in emphasis and content.  Here is a stereotypical 'inclusive' video on access in Canada that pretty much mirrors USA and some UK approaches to raising awareness.

There are many at a grassroots level that doesn't see such videos as representative of them or their area of the format of communication, and online they are in stark contrast, a segregated output on awareness based on mode, not 'ideals'.   The fact 2 or 3 formats are included apparently covers the access issue but ignores the visual one and overall image that presents, seeing is believing or is it?

It shows a lack of real understanding of how access formats actually work for us all in a  society where the image is everything.  E.G. Deaf ASL/BSL grass root areas preferring non-inclusion of modes they don't use (or prefer not to!).  It would appear a glaring breakdown of real awareness approaches being undertaken by the system and the realities as they exist.

There are those who suggest we should be recognising the realities of this and instead NOT produce 'inclusive' videos, that while they reflect the global ideal, do not reflect what actually goes on. In recognising difference we recognise what that is in real terms.   Aka sign videos for signing people and lip-spoken and captioned/subtiled videos for the other hearing loss areas etc, particularly taking into account the signing area is promoting a cultural/language approach as averse to the hard of hearing and others who simply want the basic 'English' access to reflect their perceived 'norm' and advances n cures/clinical approaches.  Where obviously there is no 'twain' to meet with cultural areas.

Should we be promoting non-inclusive realities and not a 'percieved reality' the system prefers?  If only to ensure alternative formats are portrayed properly? seen to be used in context? and awareness becomes a true reflection of who we are? As diverse as the mainstream is.  Or do we do nothing because it could be seen as 'anti-inclusion' thus leaving (In the UK at least), 10m with no contextual awareness online, and stereotyped as someone else entirely?  

ATR apologises for not really covering the deaf-blind and accepts it is as guilty of poor inclusion as are the HoH and the Deaf, but again, we accept that reality, not the reality between deaf and HoH? go figure.