Crack the myth: Reverse Audism does NOT exist.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, lemme try this one more time. Best example I can come up with.

Let's in the USA there's a mexican guy and a white guy. Both only speak either mexican/spanish or english.

#1 The white guy meets the mexican guy, and only communicates in english. The mexican asks him to use some spanish. White guy refuses.
#2 The mexican guy meets the white guy and only communicates in spanish. The white guy asks him to use some english. Mexican guy refuses.

Case number 1 = directly Audism, USA speaks english by majority
Case number 2 = type of discrimination, Spanish is not the dominant language in the USA (let's not get into semantics about that either)

Basically, in order for reverse audism to occur, there has to be a greater number of individuals in the other side to occur. It can't and still hasn't happened since deaf are the minority.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
Yes, I have. There have certainly been deaf people who have been intentionally rude to me. And, reverse audism does not have to be done by a gang of people. There was a post on AD were a hearing impaired guy was slapped in the back of the head for using a phone after he called himself deaf. If that is not reverse audism I don't know what is, he got slapped because he could use the phone and had partial hearing, because he was not, "one of them".

People want to hide behind this cloak of, "I don't have power so I can't be this or that", which would entirely negate the idea that anything is a hate crime. That's bullshit.
Click to expand...

a hearing impaired guy slapped on the back of the head for calling himself deaf when he can use the phone...well, maybe because the term "deaf" implies one cannot hear. The ability to use the phone would make that guy HOH, not deaf.

I would hardly call it hate crime. Can you show me the post where the guy talked about this?

the deaf community categorizes you - you are either HOH (as in you can speak and lipread and can hear somewhat with hearing aids) or deaf (as in you may or may not be able to lipread and speak and you cannot hear or cannot get useful speech comprehension ability with hearing aids).

I consider myself deaf but according to the deaf community in my town, I'm HOH due to my oralist upbringing and ability to speak as well as ability to pick up some speech with my hearing aids even though I'm stone deaf if I don't wear them. It's not malicious on their part, it's how they identify you by your background. When you meet a deaf person, the first question they ask is where you went to school. Probably because that alone tells them a lot about your life story and how that formed you and your identity.
 
posts from hell said:
Most likely a hearing person wrote that :)
Click to expand...

True. Always consider the source. I remember on a different forum, someone kept talking about how studies have proven milk and cheese is good for you and your bones. Finally, I asked him to quote his sources - those studies were all carried out and published by the dairy industry.
 
yes, Dr. Marion Nestle writes a lot about that kind of thing in her books on nutrition, USDA and food information.

in this case, power is held by bio-agricultural and Big Pharma industries
 
the standard is default "majority"

hence dis-empowerment
 
naisho said:
Ok, lemme try this one more time. Best example I can come up with.

Let's in the USA there's a mexican guy and a white guy. Both only speak either mexican/spanish or english.

#1 The white guy meets the mexican guy, and only communicates in english. The mexican asks him to use some spanish. White guy refuses.

#2 The mexican guy meets the white guy and only communicates in spanish. The white guy asks him to use some english. Mexican guy refuses.

Case number 1 = directly Audism, USA speaks english by majority
Case number 2 = type of discrimination, Spanish is not the dominant language in the USA (let's not get into semantics about that either)

Basically, in order for reverse audism to occur, there has to be a greater number of individuals in the other side to occur. It can't and still hasn't happened since deaf are the minority.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is, if someone is in the minority or the occurrence of something is in the minority that person is above the law? If he rapes someone and the occurrence of rape is not the dominate crime, he is not at fault. Correct?

Numerical substantiation cannot be used as a misdirection of right and wrong?
 
VacationGuy234 said:
I do recognize audism, I just don't see it everywhere I look. As I understand it, audism takes malice(to intentionally inflict injury) and just because someone sees a different way to achieve a goal does not mean it is audism.

The guy who beats you up in the school yard; starts a fight with you in a bar; won't hire you because you are deaf is not the same the guy who says you should learn Signed English or participate with hearing children (because you are going to have to deal with them your entire life). There is a difference between the parent who wants you to lip read because nobody else signs and the person who covers his mouth when he talks or purposely looks away.

As far as the technical issues with learning, even Gaulladet is 50% hearing now. And, I'm sure some people would call that audism.

And to get back to the post, there is such a thing as reverse audism and both deaf and hearing people have a responsibility to avoid it.


I'm all for the level playing field, I just wished that happened more often in the real world.
Click to expand...

No, audism does not take malice. If you only see it when it is applied with malice, then you are missing about 95% of the audism that has a negative impact on the deaf population.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
So what you are saying is, if someone is in the minority or the occurrence of something is in the minority that person is above the law? If he rapes someone and the occurrence of rape is not the dominate crime, he is not at fault. Correct?

Numerical substantiation cannot be used as a misdirection of right and wrong?
Click to expand...

No and no.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
So what you are saying is, if someone is in the minority or the occurrence of something is in the minority that person is above the law? If he rapes someone and the occurrence of rape is not the dominate crime, he is not at fault. Correct?

Numerical substantiation cannot be used as a misdirection of right and wrong?
Click to expand...

He's not talking about being above the law at all.

Using rape as an analogy is fallacious.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
I'd like to know the difference between a hearing person who covers their mouth when a deaf person is trying to understand the conversation and a deaf person who refuses to use his lips when a hearing person is trying to view the conversation?

Is this not audism on both sides?
Click to expand...

No.
 
:popcorn:
Lots of action on this thread! Blink and it's 2 pages longer!!!
 
VacationGuy234 said:
So what you are saying is, if someone is in the minority or the occurrence of something is in the minority that person is above the law? If he rapes someone and the occurrence of rape is not the dominate crime, he is not at fault. Correct?

Numerical substantiation cannot be used as a misdirection of right and wrong?
Click to expand...

Noooo, don't think too far off tangent about it. :eek3:
Make it simpler in other words
Audism is a construct formed for the majority of negative intentions given to the deaf people, any deaf person.
A perfect case of reverse audism would be that there are 300 million people who use sign language, 30 million speak english. The sign language people refuse to accommodate the english speakers.

The key is who is in charge of current society gets the label as audist.
 
CSign said:
I'm not going to give a specific example. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation.

What about when there is no Audism present, but the person is accused of being an Audist? Again- this is hypothetical.

Person is not an Audist, but is accused of being one, and in turn causes others to believe said person is an Audist. But they are not... Do you view that as helpful to the Deaf Community, or is that in fact opressing the DHH community more?
Click to expand...

That is simply the result of your refusal to look at the hearing privledge you have every single day of your life. Until you are able to do that, you will consistently engage in audist activities and make audist statements, however unwittingly it may be.

Your scope is far too narrow. You look only at your suface attitudes. You need to look deeper at the ways in which being a part of majority hearing society for your entire life has instilled audism in your very identity whether you recognize it as such or not.
 
CSign said:
I'm not going to give a specific example. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation.

What about when there is no Audism present, but the person is accused of being an Audist? Again- this is hypothetical.

Person is not an Audist, but is accused of being one, and in turn causes others to believe said person is an Audist. But they are not... Do you view that as helpful to the Deaf Community, or is that in fact opressing the DHH community more?
Click to expand...

Hypotheticals are useless. We are talking about real life and real experience. Hypotheticals are simply a smokescreen for being unwilling to look deeper into oneself.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
In case you didn't know, Audism is a form of discrimination, from Wikipedia:

"Audism is a term typically used to describe discrimination against deaf or hard of hearing people, although it could also be expanded to include anyone with a difference in hearing ability."

Audism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Audism is what makes the discrimination possible. They are not one and the same. Your scope is too narrow. And please don't use Wiki as your reference.
 
jillio said:
No, audism does not take malice. If you only see it when it is applied with malice, then you are missing about 95% of the audism that has a negative impact on the deaf population.
Click to expand...

I personally don't think this exist, but were does that leave us? Is it that these hearing people who are referred to as audist are really just nice people who did something unintentionally? I guess this would absolve the ill-equipped hearing parents, certainly. Brilliant, there is no responsibility needed on either side.

Although, now I'm kind of struggling with the audism definition of discrimination not being intentional. I guess I'll have to take a law course for that one(added to my to do list).

However, if I might point out, even if you do unintentionally commit a crime(which does not exist in the eyes of the law, mind you), you still must take responsibility for it, sadly.

Maybe I can apply this to my overdue library books...
 
jillio said:
That is simply the result of your refusal to look at the hearing privledge you have every single day of your life. Until you are able to do that, you will consistently engage in audist activities and make audist statements, however unwittingly it may be.

Your scope is far too narrow. You look only at your suface attitudes. You need to look deeper at the ways in which being a part of majority hearing society for your entire life has instilled audism in your very identity whether you recognize it as such or not.
Click to expand...

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top