Audism - The Definition and the Audist View

Wirelessly posted

jillio said:
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



but they are all full languages. One is not superior to another, therefore one can not be the "right" choice and another "wrong". They are equal.
Click to expand...

Way off target. You cannot compare two spoken language choices with the choice of a manual language evolved specifically to fit the unique processing needs of a particular population. To even attempt to do so is, frankly, an example of audism.

Greek is superior when attempting to communicate with the hearing Greek population, English is superior when attempting to communicate with hearing English speakers. ASL is superior in communicating with the deaf.
Click to expand...

when communicating with the Deaf, yes, but the other 90% of deaf people use English, so no, ASL would not be helpful in communicating with them.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



when communicating with the Deaf, yes, but the other 90% of deaf people use English, so no, ASL would not be helpful in communicating with them.
Click to expand...

Again, thank you for demonstrating that people do, indeed hold audist beliefs all the time denying that they are audist.

But I would like you to support your claim that 90% of deaf don't use ASL. I question that claim for numerous reasons. Please indicate where you found such statistics.

Additionally, have you ever considered why there are deaf that don't use ASL? The answer is simple. Audist views of those around them means that they never were provided with the opportunity to learn and become fluent in their own language.
 
Wirelessly posted

BecLak said:
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted

however, it is not audist to choose not to use ASL. Just as it is not audist to use english instead of greek.
Click to expand...

Choosing not to use Sign Language is not being audist, but implication that Sign Language is not efficient for communication equal to spoken language is audism.
Click to expand...

IF the reason someone chooses not to use sign language is because they view spoken language as superior, then yes, that would be audism. But the choice is not audist, the reason would be. There are other reasons that would not be audist.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



IF the reason someone chooses not to use sign language is because they view spoken language as superior, then yes, that would be audism. But the choice is not audist, the reason would be. There are other reasons that would not be audist.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Audist beliefs result in audist behaviors. The exhibition of audist behavior and audist choices are indeed, audist.
 
Refusing to use or acknowledge visual components in communication with the deaf is Audism.
 
Refusing to consider what the deaf themselves say will fulfill their needs is audist.
 
Speaking (when you're fluent in signing) without signing in the direct presence of deaf people is another way to demonstrate audism. The attitude is - I sign only when I want something from you (deaf person).
 
Using sign in one environment and not in all environments with a deaf child is audism.
 
Not letting deaf people join the military because of their hearing loss is a form of audism as well as discrimination.

Is it dangerous? Let us choose what we are capable of doing. Don't choose for me.
 
Insisting that a BI-Bi school should have to provide speech therapy is audist.
 
deafbajagal said:
Not letting deaf people join the military because of their hearing loss is a form of audism as well as discrimination.

Is it dangerous? Let us choose what we are capable of doing. Don't choose for me.
Click to expand...

that's not how I see it.

in military - there is we, not I. They work together and it's the matter of life and death. Deaf people are free to join defense sectors for military. There are civilian support positions in military too. I was offered an IT spot in Defense Logistics Agency.
 
jillio said:
Incorrect. Audist beliefs result in audist behaviors. The exhibition of audist behavior and audist choices are indeed, audist.
Click to expand...

Jillio, It would be much easier to stick to the correct definitions of Audism in order to explain what Audist beliefs, behaviours and choices are. Just a thought :D
 
BecLak said:
Jillio, It would be much easier to stick to the correct definitions of Audism in order to explain what Audist beliefs, behaviours and choices are. Just a thought :D
Click to expand...

If you wish.:wave: Believing that a child who hears more has added oppportunities for success is audist.
 
Wirelessly posted

jillio said:
Refusing to consider what the deaf themselves say will fulfill their needs is audist.
Click to expand...

and refusing to listen to what the deaf say, what is that? What is the name of discrimination against the deaf because they do not agree with the Deaf? Calling them names? Saying they are socially inept, putting them down? What is the label for that discrimination?
 
Assessing a child in only English to determine language ability and level but NOT assessing the child in his/her primary language of ASL is audism.

Many children are fluent in ASL, acheiving on level or beyond...but are weak in English. - but it is told they are behind "in language." It's like assessming a hearing child who is fluent in spoken English but she's labeled as being "below language level" because they tested her in Spanish (which is not her native language) and she did not do well on it.
 
Wirelessly posted

jillio said:
Using sign in one environment and not in all environments with a deaf child is audism.
Click to expand...

why? How is that saying that hearing is better than not? Explain.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



and refusing to listen to what the deaf say, what is that? What is the name of discrimination against the deaf because they do not agree with the Deaf? Calling them names? Saying they are socially inept, putting them down? What is the label for that discrimination?
Click to expand...

We are not discussing discrimination. We are discussing audism.
 
Jiro said:
that's not how I see it.

in military - there is we, not I. They work together and it's the matter of life and death. Deaf people are free to join defense sectors for military. There are civilian support positions in military too. I was offered an IT spot in Defense Logistics Agency.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. But on what grounds are they using to determining that by being deaf, I am putting my comrades in danger? Many of them have to use ear plugs during battle and cannot hear above loud noises, etc. Hmm.
 
deafbajagal said:
I see what you mean. But on what grounds are they using to determining that by being deaf, I am putting my comrades in danger? Many of them have to use ear plugs during battle and cannot hear above loud noises, etc. Hmm.
Click to expand...

That presumption is made by a hearing person who assumes that because you are deaf, you are not as capable as one who hears. Yep. Audism. Judging the deaf by hearing standards.
 
Back
Top