so to summarize: the merits of being cruel to the disabled are up for debate, but we probably shouldn't intentionally injure them.
Who wants pro and who wants con?
CRUELTY TO DISABLED
Pro:
1. Satisfying expression of power
2. They can't fight back
Con:
1. Societal disapprobation
2.Their parents or siblings may be able to fight back
OGGED'S STYLE FOR LISTS
Pro: None.
Con:
What's up with allowing <ul> and disallowing <ol> in the comments?
That's odd, I thought that the problem with playing against the retarded was the small risk of being outplayed and teased about it for the rest of my life.
Emerson, you play like a girl. A non-feminist-liberated girl!
Ben, when I was kloodgily setting up the blog in '03, I stupidly modified and used the list tags for some sidebar elements, and now they're useless for actual list making. But I haven't actually disabled or enabled any of them; MT defaults again, I expect.
So being cruel to the developmentally challenged is not as bad as putting glue on a caterpillar? Curiouser and curiouser.
I wouldn't be cruel to them just for the heck of it, but if you put them in a game, then not only is not bad, I think we're all obligated to pound that weak link. The integrity of the game!
You could probably make the current style only apply to lists of a particular class, then they'd be useful again.
I think there was a judo match - I didn't see it, just heard about it second-hand - at an Olympics in which one of the players was playing injured. Because his injury was both noticeable and known about beforehand his opponent kept going for the weakness. Anticipating this, the injured player knew how to respond and won the match.
Because his injury was both noticeable and known about beforehand his opponent kept going for the weakness.
See, now that I wouldn't do.
I think—I don't know—but I think that in your css file, you have something like:
.oggedskludge { //whatever
}
And then you can do <ul class="oggedskludge">. I think! Or perhaps you'd have to do it at the level of list elements. But then you could comment out the li-general style.
I think I know what you're saying. I'll try it this weekend.
Anticipating this, the injured player knew how to respond and won the match.
You know you don't use any lists on either the main page or the comments page, right?
Ogged, looking back, do you now feel that this behavior toward disabled players was acceptable?
At a family picnic a college kid once spike the ball on a six-year old.
He didn't taunt her, though. He was a gentleman. Good thing she was a girl.
Ogged, re: 7: There's a word missing from the first sentence, but I think you're saying that it's not a bad thing to do. Are/were you really that serious about the integrity of the game?
Ok b-dub, list style changed and ordered lists allowed. Knock yourself out.
Annie, everything becomes more easily understood when you realize that ogged neither has a soul nor makes a reflection in a mirror.
What if you all agreed that you weren't playing a game, but were indulging the handicapped kid's desire to play a game?
Thanks, ogged! I updated the B&T (that's bourbon and tonic) precis, btw.
Annie, I don't see the missing word, but seriously, this is what I'd say: if we're going to keep score, the disabled/retarded get treated like everyone else. If not, if we're doing something like what Ben suggest in 24, then we play for fun, and treat them gently, and make an effort to include them, etc.
Did you read Sheila's (long) story about this? Specifically, how being noble and kind gets girls to fall in love with you? And remember you decades later as the most magical and beautiful boy in the school?
Great, thanks Ben. Going out soon, but will definitely comment on that this weekend.
ac, I have some noble and kind in me, I think, but not when we're keeping score.
This Sheila person knew Keith Macksoud, bassist in Present?
Then you don't really have any noble and kind at all.
Out for the evening, try not to listen to Tim...
As you can probably tell, I'm having a hard time figuring out how keeping score makes it acceptable to hammer down on a disabled young player. What is/are the goal(s) of youth sports? I imagine ogged would answer, 'To win!' And that may well be one person's goal wrt any sport in which they're participating. And that's okay.
But...a youth game is not just about winning, scoring, or any one individual player's goals. Or at least I don't think it should be. Some people sincerely say, 'Winning isn't everything' and others follow up with what they consider the obvious truth, 'It's the only thing'.
A youth game with able-bodied and disabled players presents several positive opportunities, some relating to sports, some not. Why would it be so hard to be flexible enough to play with disabled players in such a way that all players got something out of it and had fun?
IIRC, ogged, you're a competitive fellow when it comes to athletics. But, good grief, youth sports are not all about what you - or any individual player - want(ed) from them.
WRT indulging disabled players: perhaps I misunderstand, but this sounds a bit condescending. An able-bodied player may find it frustrating to play with disabled players, perhaps bc they're poorly coordinated, lose focus, etc. But, hey, maybe the disabled players don't think very highly of the abled-bodied players bc they're mean-spirited, unsportsmanlike, etc.?
Truly, I don't mean to verbally hammer down on you, ogged. Yet, as I said, I just don't see how this attitude and behavior is okay.
P.S. I don't believe a word Tim says about you, ogged.
You can lead Annie to water....
Maybe it's bc of the anonymity of the web, but, from reading the blog, I just don't think ogged comes across as the soulless, non-reflective type. At least not totally soulless and non-reflective; he's not pure, for goodness' sake.
wrt to the players, the point of the game is to win. The organizers, etc, may have other purposes entirely.
I'm afraid I have to disagree re: winning being the point of the game for the players. I'm sure it was the only point for some players. I'm also sure that it wasn't the only point for some players. I know it wasn't for me, although winning did feel pretty great.
I'm thinking that the kind of game ogged is talking about is more recreational than serious, competitive youth athletics. E.g., in phys ed, even if score is kept, I think it's better overall to include disabled players. Correct me if I've misunderstood.
Now I'm wondering what would happen (and perhaps this has already happened somewhere) if a disabled player were superior to able-bodied players. Sort of like a mentally disabled person who has some overarching mental talent such that s/he would easily beat out the non-mentally disabled competition.
Can we agree to this, annie? If you're not, at least ostensibly, trying to win, you're not really playing the game. Or at least: you're playing a different game.
I read a good book a couple years back complaining about the overemphasis on competition in (pre- High School) youth sports. I can't remember the title, but here's an article that covers some of the same ground.
FWIW the book was written by a former NBA player and pro scout but I can't recall the name.
I agree that trying to win is key. I don't think that has to mean "doing everything possible to win." When I play pick-up basketball occasionally the teams end up mismatched and I end up guarding someone 80 pounds heavier then me and usually there's a general understanding that they won't post me up every time down the court and, in exchange, I won't foul them every time they get the ball down low.
It works out okay, and eventually other people show up and we can switch up the defensive assignments.
Okay, say it's a phys ed class type game. Trying to win is compatible with playing with disabled players. It's possible for all players to try to win one for the team and yet, as Nick says, not do everything possible to win. If the basketball game is tied and I can make the winning basket by taking serious advantage of, say, an individual who is notoriously athletically untalented (i.e., not 'even' disabled)...what kind of win is that? It's like the candy and the baby. I think it's better the game end in a tie than some player(s) making the easy, cheap move.
Trying to win will be more prominent in other athletic venues, e.g., competitive teams for which everyone has to try out (there must be a term for this kind of sports). And that makes sense.
Maybe these are your different types of games, Ben?
Okay, I'm gone for tonight. It's almost midnight in my neck of the woods and I'm sick so I'm going to get some rest.
easily beat out the non-mentally disabled competition.
Like Rainman at the blackjack tables.
Back to the linked article (or rather, mentioning it for the first time 44 comments in): a T-ball game among third graders? Over this, he deliberately injures a kid? A T-ball game? WTF?
if a disabled player were superior to able-bodied players
For the purposes of this discussion, that's not a disabled player.
Chances are, if it's a serious athletic competition, it's going to be divided up by ability level.
If it's not a serious athletic competition, then it probably won't be divided up, but then there's an expectation that people aren't going to be cutthroat about winning. This is especially true, I think, in gym classes, where winning is part of the goal, but part of it is to learn skills and get some exercise.
Being competitive and wanting to win is not inconsistent with good sportsmanship.
At the risk of making what might seem to be an offensive comparison, one of Annie's posts reminded me of a dilemma I often face when playing basketball: how to guard women.
I often play against women who played varsity college ball (I haven't played organized ball since age 12); they are all fundamentally much better players than I am. But I am taller, quicker and can jump better. So when guarding such a woman, do I play hard defense and block most of her shots? Or do I take a step off and watch her kill my team with deadly outside shooting?
A 27-year-old coaching 8-year-old players is playing the game of teaching them about sports and life. Procuring one to injure another to increase the chances of winning is certainly teaching something! Why not put steroids in the Kool-Aid? Gosh, if only I'd been more thoughtful, I would have taken Matt out of the league where the coach through a parent off the field for yelling at his own kid when he missed a ball, and put him in a more competitive situation. Matt might have wound up an Enron millionaire instead of a philosopher.
Jeez, I have a snarky comment all ready to go, and I scroll to the bottom and there's Mom. Hi Mom! Remember, if it weren't for the Enron millionaires I wouldn't have a job this fall.
Anyway, my Solomonic compromise: Let the retarded kid keep score.
my Solomonic compromise
Wow, that's much better than cutting him in half and making each team a side.
I hope the missing verb isn't 'eat'.
Also, Mom, "through"? You shame me.
I hope the missing verb isn't 'eat'.
Well, no, it wasn't. But now that you've suggested it, I think that may have moved back ahead of letting him keep score.
Wow, that's much better than cutting him in half and making each team [eat] a side.
A side of what? Fried okra? Mustard greens? That sounds fine to me. The cutting him in half part doesn't sound very nice, though.
And I can't believe no-one has brought up this pearl from the archives yet. I can just picture it all now:
Somebody: "Ogged, he's disabled."
Ogged: "He's abled enough to lose."
I struggled with this issue about students with disabilities when I taught middle school Latin and English. As a new teacher, I was particularly stymied by the circumstance that there was a young man in my class who required, in order to function in school, the constant attendance of a man hired to accompany him to class to keep him in line. This would have been lovely, but the man's hours did not start until after the end of my class period. Here was a kid whom everyone agreed was operating at about a third grade level, emotionally, in a 7th/8th grade Latin class. It was a nightmare. However, I did a lot of thinking about the whole world of special education, and "inclusion." The great thing about it all is that it is really through those struggling to transform the educational establishment for students with disabilities that we are all having to think harder about what we are trying to teach students, and what, really, school is about -as well as what kind of society we are working toward. This is why I appreciated comments 40 and 43 in particular. There are very, very different games afoot. The thing that worries me about the politics of this all is that, like the abortion debate, we are engaged, as a society, in battling out all of these issues over the bodies of our children. I also think that Ogged has a very good point about the purity of a game. This is often lost when the notion of "inclusion" is implemented -a "least restrictive environment" as mandated by federal law in the educational setting for a child with disabilities may not mean just dumping the child into a "regular" classroom -such an enviroment may prove particularly "restrictive" because the child may not be able to function in such a classroom, and so his or her learning is stymied. Similarly, the game and its dynamics, and how, exactly, the child is included, and with what sorts of assistances, and understandings among the other players. I agree with Ogged -to expect the other children to adjust, without preparing them, and including THEM in the process of inclusion is to do no one a favor.
Mustard greens are pretty awesome, it has to be admitted.
Mustard greens are pretty awesome, it has to be admitted.
That sounds awfully grudging, ben. Come on, it's not like mustard greens are Jagged Little Pill or something: say it loud and say it proud!
As a coach, disgusted by this clown. As parent of two very good atheletes, disgusted by this clown. As a parent of a disabled kid, I'd like to beat the living shit out this clown. I also believe I'd want to do the same even without my own disabled child. As for Ogg's attitude? Seems to me he is lacking in a certain quality that all too many of us are, empathy.
JM, if I had no empathy, there would be no issue here. I would just merrily stomp the disabled kids. The problem is precisely that my empathy is being put into conflict with my idea of what a contest is supposed to be. Furthermore, contests are one of the few places where we can suspend our Christian virtues a bit and I'm annoyed to have that outlet taken away.
Then I suggest anyone with similiar thoughts should go the tryout route and not the open regstration/intramural route. Stomp on anyone you like, that's what other "tryouters" signed up for as well. Gym and intramurals are for healthy excerise and friendly competition. Tell me, do you or did you ever play co-ed sports? Did you or do you stomp on your female opponents or take the gentlemenly approach? Well, regardless, enjoy your competition...someday you'll likely have children and then the rules and perspective change or you end up like that dope. :)
Competition is fun because of the simple rules. Everyone knows the rules and you just follow them. In the situation ogged was talking about, adults changed the rules around without fully explaining the new more complex rules to the kids. This can be annoying if you like the simple rules.
Ya know, I don't understand what's so complex about how to appropriately interact with disabled players. Do people not know the more basic rule re: not stomping on people who are at a serious disadvantage to you?
Snark aside, I can understand ogged's point. You play the game to compete and to try to win; that's the joy of it. It's not that different than playing a game with little kids. It's fun to play with them, and you don't try to embarrass them when you do it. But it's only acceptable to play with little kids because you don't normally have to do so.
You mean acceptable to you, the player, right?
Yeah. What else could I have meant?
There's b-dub, just making sure that you know you've been insulted...
Well, there is a sense in which the point of games is to stomp on people who are at a serious disadvantage to you. Seriously, in real life, you have to worry about whether your actions are ethical or kind -- when you're playing a game, everyone has agreed that larger considerations are absent, and you're allowed to do anything permitted by the rules of the game. Because it's just a game, you don't need to worry about kindness, or ethics, just rules. Someone who's going to take aggressive play directed at them personally and be hurt by it doesn't understand how games work and shouldn't play. (If you want to play with people of differing skill levels or abilities, as in 47, you handicap, either formally or informally, but the handicapping is to keep the game going, not because it's wrong to take advantage of a weaker player.)
Playing with mentally handicapped kids is different because the presumption is that they haven't, or aren't capable of, buying into the 'just a game' nature of competition, and will take it personally. At this point, I think it's fair to be annoyed with the organizers for spoiling the game for the kids who actually want to compete, but the game is spoiled as competition regardless, and the only decent thing to do is to treat all the players kindly rather than competitively.
That was to 62, but Tim covered it more concisely in 63.
This connects, believe it or not, with the retributivism thread on capital punishment. Here's the question we should always be asking ourselves: does my action treat subject as a person. Respecting someone as a person means, among other things, giving them what they deserve, not lying to them, not being paternalistic towards them, and treating their actions as a result of their choices.
In a competitive game, "respect" means playing to the best of your ability. It is not respectful to intentionally slack off. That's how you treat inferiors, not peers. Ogged thinks he's providing "real inclusion" -- he's treating these kids as equals. And guess what, if it's really a competitive game, he's right! If it's not a competitive game, and everyone is in to have fun, then he'd be a dick to steal the ball from the handicapped kid on every possession. (and we know that can't be true...)
I should note also that there are plenty of "respectful" ways to deal with players of divergent abililty. Handicapping (no pun inteded) is one way. But there's a world of difference between playing down a pawn (or a Queen) and intentionally making bad moves. Everyone can see this, right?
I see LB has kind of covered this from the reverse angle. If we admit that the hadnicapped kids really aren't equal, and we should be paternalistic towards them, then, yeah, let them win and pretend it's a real game and they're the olympic champion. All I know is that if someone treated me that way, I'd be livid.
But you seem so happy when we pretend to take your political views seriously...
Yes, there are games in which one is expected to stomp on the competition. That's the tryout/competitive type of game. Certain playing behavior is allowed, expected and encouraged. Disabled players are unlikely to qualify to compete in such games. To force disabled players' inclusion would be to change the nature of the situation. I believe ogged's post references a different situation, e.g., gym class, phys ed, intramurals, rec groups, etc., where abled-bodied and disabled players play together. In this latter situation, there isn't necessarily this one overriding goal, to win, and certain other playing behaviors are accepted, expected and encouraged.
P.S. I would be very happy to have some clarification on what type of situation ogged was referencing in his original post. It does not sound like a tryout/competitive situation, since adult organizers were in charge of who played and were including differently abled players. I think some commenters would actually be in agreement if we were clear on which situation we're discussing.
I did mean things like gym class, etc. I think exbeforelast makes a great point when she says
to expect the other children to adjust, without preparing them, and including THEM in the process of inclusion is to do no one a favor
And, honestly, this happened only a few times when I was a kid; it just pisses me off in principle.
baa -
I don't think trying to inject "respecting the other person as a person" works in this context. The rules of the game, decided beforehand, limn the basic requirements of respecting the other person by respecting the rules of the game. On top of that sit cultural norms that don't have the same force. But outside of that, everything goes. Jordan shooting a freethrow in an NBA game with his eyes closed is disrespectful, but still OK.
Moreover it doesn't work in the specific context we're discussing. The rules are created based on an assumption that all of the players are roughly equivalent in ability. If we knew beforehand that every game would include a developmentally challenged person, we might change the rules of the game. Similarly, in the criminal justice system, if we know that there will always be some part of the population that is "challenged" as regards the law (drug addicts?), we might reasonably change the rules (or at least the import of a rule violation).
Annie:
I think the general assumption is that any competitive game is normally a competitive game, whether it be in Phys Ed, or a pick-up game, or whatever. If it's not to be a strictly competitive game, we recognize that it's a departure from the norm and act accordingly. It's a minor cost because we realize that there will be lots and lots of other opportunities to have a normal game.
SCMT, I think we are basically in agreement, although I'm not sure I agree w/that business re: what is the general assumption when playing any kind of game.
ogged, thanks for the clarification. I imagine that, now that we know what kind of situation we're talking about, most would agree that stomping on a disabled player is not the thing to do.
Exbl's point is right on target in that the adults involved in the game need to communicate expectations to all the players.
Respecting someone as a person means, among other things, giving them what they deserve, not lying to them, not being paternalistic towards them, and treating their actions as a result of their choices.
I don't know, these seem like admirable principles or ideals, but awfully absolutist. I think respecting someone sometimes means cutting them some slack, or choosing not to fight a particular battle on that particular day, or giving them, in light of the totality of a particular situation, a pass now and then.
to expect the other children to adjust, without preparing them, and including THEM in the process of inclusion is to do no one a favor.
I think this is exactly right. And I think that one possible part of ogged's reaction might be that, while at any age it can be hard to now how to act appropriately to people in a given situation, it's particularly hard, especially if you haven't had much or any experience doing so, to know how to act around the disabled (not to mention particularly hard when you're young and in general don't know much about how you're supposed to act in most situations). Such discomfort often leads to anger, and it's foolish for the adults in charge not to recognize this.
73But you seem so happy when we pretend to take your political views seriously...
Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 05:56 PM
74
nice!
Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 06:05 PM
Now this I can unequivocally agree with.
