A lot of convincing information here. Killers literary output varied significantly with who was her caretaker at different moments in time.
That she was able to learn at all was astounding. I suppose the question is how much did we read of Helen Keller and how much did we read of her caretakers?
The fact Helen was taught and interpreted by a left wing couple certainly raises reasonable questions. Weird that there are no other Helen Kellers of comparable condition and output.
Thoughtful video. Host welcomes questions and corrections.
Entirely plausible that two libs used Helen to promote their ideology.
Ken LaCorte is a conspiracy theorist and generally unreliable source.
Helen Keller's life is well attested (although some of the stories about her have become exaggerated in the retelling).
Your ad hominem analysis indicates that you can't refute the substance of the video.
From the video:
"No one can really confirm whether she had a tiny amount of vision or hearing"
Her eyes were surgically removed when she was 30. That usually does it. The tests at the time indicated she had no hearing. Maybe they were not a reliable as the ones we would use today, but that doesn't make her a fraud.
He comments that Helen Keller produced a remarkable amount of stuff for someone who became deaf-blind so early.
Yes. And? Exceptional people exist (and as he points out, a lot of deaf-blind people have other disabilities, which Keller did not).
He says "We don't have a steady stream of deaf-blind college graduates"
We do, actually. Not many, because it's not very common and people who are deaf-blind need special educational attention fairly early on and not all of them get it, but they exist. Helen Keller was lucky in that her family was able to provide a full-time teacher. Most can't.
Also note that when Keller applied to college, Anne Sullivan was not permitted to take the exam with her. Arthur Gillman, a teacher, but not a deaf-blind teacher, did. He would sign the questions to her (he had to learn the manual alphabet) and she would type out the responses.
He says her writing style and output changed after Anne Sullivan died. Well, sure. She was also in her 60s at that point, her life-long friend had died, and she was getting towards the end of her life. Maybe it did.
The point about facilitated communication is a red-herring. Helen Keller actually typed most of her books herself, on either a braille or regular typewriter, without assistance.
Ultimately, he doesn't seem to have much of an actual point.
A lot of convincing information here. Killers literary output varied significantly with who was her caretaker at different moments in time.
That she was able to learn at all was astounding. I suppose the question is how much did we read of Helen Keller and how much did we read of her caretakers?
You probably are an underachiever who feels insignificant when a woman without her senses has accomplished much more than you.
The fact Helen was taught and interpreted by a left wing couple certainly raises reasonable questions. Weird that there are no other Helen Kellers of comparable condition and output.
Thoughtful video. Host welcomes questions and corrections.
Entirely plausible that two libs used Helen to promote their ideology.
^ I see the forum neckbeard has graced us with his opinion...
Ken LaCorte is a conspiracy theorist and generally unreliable source.
Helen Keller's life is well attested (although some of the stories about her have become exaggerated in the retelling).
Your ad hominem analysis indicates that you can't refute the substance of the video.
Ad hominem example: “That claim is wrong because he’s an idiot.”
A credibility judgement (not a fallacy): “This guy is not worth my time because I'm familiar with the misinformation and non-factual analysis he spewed during his fox news days."
A lot of convincing information here. Killers literary output varied significantly with who was her caretaker at different moments in time.
That she was able to learn at all was astounding. I suppose the question is how much did we read of Helen Keller and how much did we read of her caretakers?
You probably are an underachiever who feels insignificant when a woman without her senses has accomplished much more than you.
Damn bruh you cut me to the quick. Of course anyone who asks a question you don’t like is by definition an underachiever. I see that now. Hsoed has opened my eyes!
A lot of convincing information here. Killers literary output varied significantly with who was her caretaker at different moments in time.
That she was able to learn at all was astounding. I suppose the question is how much did we read of Helen Keller and how much did we read of her caretakers?
His entire argument is made in bad faith. At the very core he took the most notable deaf/blind person and claimed it was suspicious that there weren’t other equally remarkable deaf/blind people while also showing deaf blind people with similar but less notable accomplishments.
Like saying Jim Abbott was a fraud because there aren’t any other 1 handed pitchers.
"No one can really confirm whether she had a tiny amount of vision or hearing"
Her eyes were surgically removed when she was 30. That usually does it.
You make good points but I think a lot of Keller’s literary output was before the age of 30.
So your argument is that she had her partially working eyes removed? Just for fun? And then her literary output (which apparently wasn’t even her anyway) suffered because of it?
The fact Helen was taught and interpreted by a left wing couple certainly raises reasonable questions. Weird that there are no other Helen Kellers of comparable condition and output.
Thoughtful video. Host welcomes questions and corrections.
Entirely plausible that two libs used Helen to promote their ideology.
And on top of all that... those dastardly libs have made Helen Keller jokes uncool...
"conspiracy theory" does not automatically mean false. It just means:
conspiracy.....agreement between at least 2 or more people, usually a secret agreement
theory.....there's some evidence to support an explanation for something, but the level of evidence has not crossed someone indeterminate threshold at which the assertion can be deemed a "fact" (e.g., there are lots of scientific theories that are awaiting proof of verification or falsification)
But people who are intellectually lazy love to deem things a conspiracy theory, because then the person doesn't have to look closer at the underlying claim.
A lot of convincing information here. Killers literary output varied significantly with who was her caretaker at different moments in time.
That she was able to learn at all was astounding. I suppose the question is how much did we read of Helen Keller and how much did we read of her caretakers?