Crack the myth: Reverse Audism does NOT exist.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would say it depends on what they stereotype them with.
 
FireTiger said:
*ok* You asked about the state of my Uterus and neither of us believe we are supposed to have children or ask hubbies about -our- bodies...

...WAY off topic here... ;)

Um... Audism...

right...

anything constructive to add -

At the end of all of this I see why it can stated that 'reverse-audism' cannot exist based on the definitions pulled from well AWSmith, Jillo and myself at least.

We would have to discuss other definitions separately.

My question is what can we call it when a bigoted deafie has a horrible attitude and stereotypes all hearies?

Can well call it anything at all?
Click to expand...

Didn't you just give it a label? (note the bold)
 
FireTiger said:
*ok* You asked about the state of my Uterus and neither of us believe we are supposed to have children or ask hubbies about -our- bodies...

...WAY off topic here... ;)

Um... Audism...

right...

anything constructive to add -

At the end of all of this I see why it can stated that 'reverse-audism' cannot exist based on the definitions pulled from well AWSmith, Jillo and myself at least.

We would have to discuss other definitions separately.

My question is what can we call it when a bigoted deafie has a horrible attitude and stereotypes all hearies?

Can well call it anything at all?
Click to expand...

Yeah - "prejudiced".
 
Cheetah said:
Didn't you just give it a label? (note the bold)
Click to expand...

I guess I did, I often do this:

"This is a sentence about something (and descriptor goes here) about which I am not being too specific..."

Is there anything we haven't answered besides the of-topic things

(racism, politics, abortion, white rulers and white ruling groups...)
 
FireTiger said:
I guess I did, I often do this:

"This is a sentence about something (and descriptor goes here) about which I am not being too specific..."

Is there anything we haven't answered besides the of-topic things

(racism, politics, abortion, white rulers and white ruling groups...)
Click to expand...

We did get the biggies... now lets go all out and solve world peace! :D
 
FireTiger said:
*ok* You asked about the state of my Uterus and neither of us believe we are supposed to have children or ask hubbies about -our- bodies...

...WAY off topic here... ;)

Um... Audism...

right...

anything constructive to add -

At the end of all of this I see why it can stated that 'reverse-audism' cannot exist based on the definitions pulled from well AWSmith, Jillo and myself at least.

We would have to discuss other definitions separately.

My question is what can we call it when a bigoted deafie has a horrible attitude and stereotypes all hearies?

Can well call it anything at all?
Click to expand...

How about calling them a bigoted hearie that stereotypes all deafies? Works for me.
 
FireTiger said:
I guess I did, I often do this:

"This is a sentence about something (and descriptor goes here) about which I am not being too specific..."

Is there anything we haven't answered besides the of-topic things

(racism, politics, abortion, white rulers and white ruling groups...)
Click to expand...

Actually, none of those things are off topic. They all stem from the same social conditions that allow audism to exist. While audism can certainly be practiced by an individual, it is more of a group phenomenon that manifests as a sociological concern.
 
jillio said:
Actually, none of those things are off topic. They all stem from the same social conditions that allow audism to exist.
Click to expand...

They are on topic as long as they are still related to the topic- when things degrade into a debate or google-hunt for things based on an off-topic comment... then we have a tangent.

(remember, zebra and Lions)
 
My question is what can we call it when a bigoted deafie has a horrible attitude and stereotypes all hearies?
Click to expand...


An asshole.
 
They are on topic as long as they are still related to the topic- when things degrade into a debate or google-hunt for things based on an off-topic comment... then we have a tangent.
Click to expand...

It's called an analogy. :P
 
sallylou said:
It's called an analogy. :P
Click to expand...

Naw, the point I'm talking about its a war with two or more people battling it out on some obscure point of what once was relevant.

:laugh2:

Analogous things are... alike in some way. ;)
 
DeafCaroline said:
Give me a real life example of reverse audism. I am trying hard to think of one. I don't just mean an opinion, I mean an actual act of reverse audism.
Click to expand...

Deaf people looking down on hearing people because they can hear but that's very very rare for deaf people to do that. It is usually due to them not knowing ASL or not being willing to make the effort to meet halfway with communication needs.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
I disagree that audism is the reason that deaf children don't do well in school. It may be mismanagement of special education funds, but I don't believe it is audism. I don't believe the school system is systematically keeping children down because they are deaf.

I'm not arguing that they wouldn't do better if they had better services. I grew up in a mainstream school and to my knowledge nobody was turned away because of their hearing.
Click to expand...

Deaf children need to speak like hearing children. Deaf children need to be around hearing kids. Deaf children need to hear like hearing children.

Changing a language to fit the hearing people's language or compromising languages by speaking and signing at the same time?

Not audist? :hmm:
 
rolling7 said:
Answer this

a) If the hearing stick it to the deaf, what is that? (the OP calls it audism)

b) If the deaf stick it to the hearing, what is that?

b is the reverse of a
Click to expand...

Hearing people could always vote to remove SSI from deaf people if they felt like we are sticking it to them.

That makes your argument moot.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Parents that opt to put their deaf children in a hearing school are consciously or unconsciously committing an audist act. Schools that fail to accomodate the deaf student's needs because they are not equipped for them - that would be because of parents' decision to enrol their deaf child in them.

Deaf children don't enrol themselves into mainstream.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I haven't been exposed to as much audism as everyone else has, but I can assure you I've had my share.

The world we live in is not a deaf one and it is not naive to understand it. And, while it can be argued that hearing parents don't understand deaf children it should also be argued that they understand the hearing world. Based on that, they make decisions to best prepare their children for life. I hardly think that is an audist act, audism requires malice. In fact, I think they would be negligent if they didn't take into account what life is like for them.

We do not live in a glass snow globe, far from it.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
Perhaps I haven't been exposed to as much audism as everyone else has, but I can assure you I've had my share.

The world we live in is not a deaf one and it is not naive to understand it. And, while it can be argued that hearing parents don't understand deaf children it should also be argued that they understand the hearing world. Based on that, they make decisions to best prepare their children for life. I hardly think that is an audist act, audism requires malice. In fact, I think they would be negligent if they didn't take into account what life is like for them.

We do not live in a glass snow globe, far from it.
Click to expand...

Put a deaf child into a school where he can't hear the teachers nor his peers thus be set up to fail or nearly fail both academically and socially and then say - that's the right thing to do, after all, we don't live in a snow globe. His parents made a well-equipped decision.

C'mon...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top