CI--Deaf or Hearing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's be realistic here. We need a Deaf militant in an elected office in order to have anything done. It would be nice if ANY deafie has such an office, but right now there is zero. Just saying.
 
Beowulf said:
Let's be realistic here. We need a Deaf militant in an elected office in order to have anything done. It would be nice if ANY deafie has such an office, but right now there is zero. Just saying.
Click to expand...

I will certainly agree with that one. People seem not to pay attention until we get extreme. And it would not necessarily have to be someone who IDs as Deaf, as long as they give precedence to cultural and social issues that affect the Deaf. I would, however, prefer someone who IDs as Deaf, just to add a degree of credibility.
 
Beowulf said:
Let's be realistic here. We need a Deaf militant in an elected office in order to have anything done. It would be nice if ANY deafie has such an office, but right now there is zero. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Beo, what makes someone a "Deaf militant", in your opinion?

When I think 'militant', I think of someone who is fighting aggressively for a cause. So, combined with Deaf, what's the platform or cause? ASL language parity + other economic, social, academic rights for all who are deaf? Seems like that would make any and all of us who lobby our congress reps for insurance coverage for hearing aids, fight for public awareness of what it means to be deaf, work towards bettering our schools and making academics accessible, etc.

Or is 'militant' more oriented towards violence, as opposed to activism/advocacy or Deaf activism/advocacy?
 
GrendelQ said:
Beo, what makes someone a "Deaf militant", in your opinion?

When I think 'militant', I think of someone who is fighting aggressively for a cause. So, combined with Deaf, what's the platform or cause? ASL language parity + other economic, social, academic rights for all who are deaf? Seems like that would make any and all of us who lobby our congress reps for insurance coverage for hearing aids, fight for public awareness of what it means to be deaf, work towards bettering our schools and making academics accessible, etc.
Click to expand...

What you described is an activist. A militant is quite different. A militant is not concerned with what is PC, or whether they are offending the majority. An activist takes these things into consideration. Most activists advocate from a hearing perspective. A militant has the Deaf perspective as their platform.

It has virtually nothing to do with violence, but nice attempt at a back handed slur.
 
GrendelQ - why don't you review drphil's last 500 posts...you will see that he thinks Deaf, with a capital D is an ideology not rooted in reality. He keeps referencing to Harlan's book, in particular how the CI industry is eradicating Deaf culture, even though we've all pointed out it was published in the mid-90s, during a controversial time. CIs back then were not as advanced as they are now and approval of implantation in babies despite that no long term studies were done was naturally controverisal. Anyone can understand that except him evidently.

Whenever he does reference to Deaf or Deaf culture, he would quote terms such as "alleged" deaf culture, "so-called deaf culture" - "imaginary deaf community", saying it's not a real culture if it's not a race/ethnic/religion thing. You could clearly see people trying to explain to drphil over and over and over again that Deaf is a culture, deaf is a description of one's hearing loss. And still, despite so many members here bending over backwards to get him to understand, he persists flinging around the deaf militant labels and inferring deaf culture to be hogwash. That the term "audist" is bandied about to quieten any opponent who does not subscribe to Deaf culture. That he didn't suddenly acquire "deaf values" when he got implanted therefore Deaf culture is not based in reality.

No wonder anyone would lose patience with him. It's been explained to him at least a hundred times already and he's still refusing to listen and acknowledge and register what was said and then harping on Lane and Marsden to justify his thinking that all those who call themselves Deaf must be militant.
 
DeafCaroline said:
GrendelQ - why don't you review drphil's last 500 posts...you will see that he thinks Deaf, with a capital D is an ideology not rooted in reality. He keeps referencing to Harlan's book, in particular how the CI industry is eradicating Deaf culture, even though we've all pointed out it was published in the mid-90s, during a controversial time. CIs back then were not as advanced as they are now and approval of implantation in babies despite that no long term studies were done was naturally controverisal. Anyone can understand that except him evidently.

Whenever he does reference to Deaf or Deaf culture, he would quote terms such as "alleged" deaf culture, "so-called deaf culture" - "imaginary deaf community", saying it's not a real culture if it's not a race/ethnic/religion thing. You could clearly see people trying to explain to drphil over and over and over again that Deaf is a culture, deaf is a description of one's hearing loss. And still, despite so many members here bending over backwards to get him to understand, he persists flinging around the deaf militant labels and inferring deaf culture to be hogwash. That the term "audist" is bandied about to quieten any opponent who does not subscribe to Deaf culture. That he didn't suddenly acquire "deaf values" when he got implanted therefore Deaf culture is not based in reality.

No wonder anyone would lose patience with him. It's been explained to him at least a hundred times already and he's still refusing to listen and acknowledge and register what was said and then harping on Lane and Marsden to justify his thinking that all those who call themselves Deaf must be militant.
Click to expand...
. If he is so disrespectful to Deaf culture, ASL. Andour values...maybe it is time to start ignoring him instead of trying to educate him.
 
DeafCaroline said:
GrendelQ - why don't you review drphil's last 500 posts...you will see that he thinks Deaf, with a capital D is an ideology not rooted in reality. He keeps referencing to Harlan's book, in particular how the CI industry is eradicating Deaf culture, even though we've all pointed out it was published in the mid-90s, during a controversial time. CIs back then were not as advanced as they are now and approval of implantation in babies despite that no long term studies were done was naturally controverisal. Anyone can understand that except him evidently.

Whenever he does reference to Deaf or Deaf culture, he would quote terms such as "alleged" deaf culture, "so-called deaf culture" - "imaginary deaf community", saying it's not a real culture if it's not a race/ethnic/religion thing. You could clearly see people trying to explain to drphil over and over and over again that Deaf is a culture, deaf is a description of one's hearing loss. And still, despite so many members here bending over backwards to get him to understand, he persists flinging around the deaf militant labels and inferring deaf culture to be hogwash. That the term "audist" is bandied about to quieten any opponent who does not subscribe to Deaf culture. That he didn't suddenly acquire "deaf values" when he got implanted therefore Deaf culture is not based in reality.

No wonder anyone would lose patience with him. It's been explained to him at least a hundred times already and he's still refusing to listen and acknowledge and register what was said and then harping on Lane and Marsden to justify his thinking that all those who call themselves Deaf must be militant.
Click to expand...

And so what do you think a Deaf militant is, and believes in?
 
DeafCaroline said:
GrendelQ - why don't you review drphil's last 500 posts...you will see that he thinks Deaf, with a capital D is an ideology not rooted in reality. He keeps referencing to Harlan's book, in particular how the CI industry is eradicating Deaf culture, even though we've all pointed out it was published in the mid-90s, during a controversial time. CIs back then were not as advanced as they are now and approval of implantation in babies despite that no long term studies were done was naturally controverisal. Anyone can understand that except him evidently.

Whenever he does reference to Deaf or Deaf culture, he would quote terms such as "alleged" deaf culture, "so-called deaf culture" - "imaginary deaf community", saying it's not a real culture if it's not a race/ethnic/religion thing. You could clearly see people trying to explain to drphil over and over and over again that Deaf is a culture, deaf is a description of one's hearing loss. And still, despite so many members here bending over backwards to get him to understand, he persists flinging around the deaf militant labels and inferring deaf culture to be hogwash. That the term "audist" is bandied about to quieten any opponent who does not subscribe to Deaf culture. That he didn't suddenly acquire "deaf values" when he got implanted therefore Deaf culture is not based in reality.

No wonder anyone would lose patience with him. It's been explained to him at least a hundred times already and he's still refusing to listen and acknowledge and register what was said and then harping on Lane and Marsden to justify his thinking that all those who call themselves Deaf must be militant.
Click to expand...

Very well said. Grendel seems to have a need to jump in and defend anyone we find offensive or annoying. Makes her own position appear to be very incongruent.
 
GrendelQ said:
Beo, what makes someone a "Deaf militant", in your opinion?

When I think 'militant', I think of someone who is fighting aggressively for a cause. So, combined with Deaf, what's the platform or cause? ASL language parity + other economic, social, academic rights for all who are deaf? Seems like that would make any and all of us who lobby our congress reps for insurance coverage for hearing aids, fight for public awareness of what it means to be deaf, work towards bettering our schools and making academics accessible, etc.

Or is 'militant' more oriented towards violence, as opposed to activism/advocacy or Deaf activism/advocacy?
Click to expand...

There are different types of militants. In short, I wish there was a firebrand in office, someone who knows exactly what kind of responses his/her statements would make. That way, compromises could be made, and that comes through dialogue. There is no dialogue now.
 
jillio said:
What you described is an activist. A militant is quite different. A militant is not concerned with what is PC, or whether they are offending the majority. An activist takes these things into consideration. Most activists advocate from a hearing perspective. A militant has the Deaf perspective as their platform.

It has virtually nothing to do with violence, but nice attempt at a back handed slur.
Click to expand...

Don't project your nastiness onto me. I don't operate the way you do. I asked Beo a direct and sincere question.
 
shel90 said:
. If he is so disrespectful to Deaf culture, ASL. Andour values...maybe it is time to start ignoring him instead of trying to educate him.
Click to expand...

We can't educate someone who doesn't want to learn. I keep correcting him for the sake of newbies. I don't want anyone to come in here to learn and think his posts have any validity beyond his own existence.
 
GrendelQ said:
And so what do you think a Deaf militant is, and believes in?
Click to expand...

But why does it matter? Or why does it matter what DeafCaroline thinks it is? Nobody was discussing deaf militants, not to a serious degree anyway, other than Dr.Phil constantly interjecting it in his posts. If he wants to think that's what we all are, then that's his issue.
 
jillio said:
Very well said. Grendel seems to have a need to jump in and defend anyone we find offensive or annoying. Makes her own position appear to be very incongruent.
Click to expand...

For one thing, I didn't realize anyone here found Beowulf annoying or offensive, and for another, I'm not defending him, I'm engaging in a conversation.
 
Iam a soft-core Deaf militant. :lol:
 
GrendelQ said:
Don't project your nastiness onto me. I don't operate the way you do. I asked Beo a direct and sincere question.
Click to expand...

The remark about violence as connected to the concept of Deaf militant was indeed a back handed slur. Don't want to be called out on it, stop making such references. You are too intelligent not to realize the implication.
 
GrendelQ said:
For one thing, I didn't realize anyone here found Beowulf annoying or offensive, and for another, I'm not defending him, I'm engaging in a conversation.
Click to expand...

The ancient Celtics are rolling in their crypts. :lol:
 
GrendelQ said:
For one thing, I didn't realize anyone here found Beowulf annoying or offensive, and for another, I'm not defending him, I'm engaging in a conversation.
Click to expand...

You really need to go back and read. It is not Beowulf I was referring to, and Beo certainly doesn't need you to defend.:lol:
 
shel90 said:
Iam a soft-core Deaf militant. :lol:
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that! I guess some consider anyone who is willing to speak out against audism a militant.:lol: I prefer the term "social activist".:giggle:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top