Deafhood

[GrendelQ]

I wasn't referring to Ladd's book, as I do not have access to it so as to read it. Note I said: IMO.

You mentioned that you "disagree with the concept that Deafhood is colonizing." I'm familiar with the relationships that Ladd has developed between Deafhood and colonization but didn't realize there was a Deafhood as a colonizing force in itself concept under discussion. Whose concept of this do you disagree with, or what does that concept consist of?

 

[BecLak]

You mentioned that you "disagree with the concept that Deafhood is colonizing." I'm familiar with the relationships that Ladd has developed between Deafhood and colonization but didn't realize there was a Deafhood as a colonizing force in itself concept under discussion. Whose concept of this do you disagree with, or what does that concept consist of?

Not 'whose' concept, just simply the concept in general. I was stating my own view and opinion, I wasn't going by any written text as such. Should I need to?

 

[deafskeptic]

Yeah, you guys are right. I won't be repeating myself again. If they didn't hear me the first two or three times, it would be silly to assume they would hear me the fourth or 100th time.

I think koko is being hard of understanding on purpose.

 

[Beach girl]

I think Koko is being far, far, more polite than most of the people criticizing him. So far he hasn't told anyone to STFU, for instance, or to get out of here because they don't agree with him, or called people names. People who do those things are the ones losing the argument, IMHO.

Or, at minimum, not being very good ambassadors for the much-discussed "deaf values."

 

[deafskeptic]

I think Koko is being far, far, more polite than most of the people criticizing him. So far he hasn't told anyone to STFU, for instance, or to get out of here because they don't agree with him, or called people names. People who do those things are the ones losing the argument, IMHO.

Or, at minimum, not being very good ambassadors for the much-discussed "deaf values."

What name calling? All I said was that he was being hard of understanding.

You would do well to research his history with us before calling us out. There's a reason why he's not well liked.

 

[TXgolfer]

I think Koko is being far, far, more polite than most of the people criticizing him. So far he hasn't told anyone to STFU, for instance, or to get out of here because they don't agree with him, or called people names. People who do those things are the ones losing the argument, IMHO.

Or, at minimum, not being very good ambassadors for the much-discussed "deaf values."

Oh you've done it now...... :Ohno:

*covers ears*. (old habit)

 

[Beach girl]

Yeah, I know. I'm now going to be called an audist and an example of a failure to understand the history and blah, blah, blah.

All I'm saying is what I'm seeing.

Deafskeptic, it wasn't you specifically I was referring to on the calling names part.

 

[TXgolfer]

What name calling? All I said was that he was being hard of understanding.

You would do well to research his history with us before calling us out. There's a reason why he's not well liked.

There are reasons for many people here not to be liked...

there are alot of people with strong opinions on AD....including me. But I can only think of one that berated other members on a regular basis.

 

[Jiro]

Yeah, I know. I'm now going to be called an audist and an example of a failure to understand the history and blah, blah, blah.

All I'm saying is what I'm seeing.

Deafskeptic, it wasn't you specifically I was referring to on the calling names part.

FYI - you would be called an audist if you believe that deafies should try their damnest to hear and talk.. and that they should accommodate hearing people in order to communicate with them.... that deaf people' quality of life would be crappy if all they can do is sign....

not because you don't know the deaf history...

 

[Jiro]

I think Koko is being far, far, more polite than most of the people criticizing him. So far he hasn't told anyone to STFU, for instance, or to get out of here because they don't agree with him, or called people names. People who do those things are the ones losing the argument, IMHO.

Or, at minimum, not being very good ambassadors for the much-discussed "deaf values."

 

[Beach girl]

Which I'm not, and I've never said anything remotely like that. Yet, a certain person still loves to toss around the "audist" label at any opportunity. Basically it just means anyone who disagrees with her, rather than anything substantive.

For *myself,* my life is way better because of hearing aids. Seems like most of the people here who can be helped by aids or CIs are using them and feel like their lives are better for them. Does that make nearly everyone "audist?" I don't think so.

I think what Grendel was talking about a while ago in another thread about the gymnastics instructor who wouldn't teach her daughter's deaf friend properly is a good example of an "audist" - someone who believes that a deaf child, because of her deafness, can't do something that has absolutely nothing to do with her hearing ability.

As for "journey into deafhood" - everyone has their own journey in life. Some of us are journeying towards fitness, or towards becoming better educated, or towards a greater sense of happiness in their personal relationships. If someone feels that journeying into d-or (D)eafhood is their personal journey, fine by me. And if not, I've also got no quarrel with it.

Why can't we all just respect each other's paths, rather than trying to force everyone who is hard-of-hearing or deaf on to this same "journey?"

 

[Jiro]

Which I'm not, and I've never said anything remotely like that.

good. then you should know that you won't be called out as an audist

Yet, a certain person still loves to toss around the "audist" label at any opportunity. Basically it just means anyone who disagrees with her, rather than anything substantive.

that's funny... and a certain person still loves to toss around the "deafhood", "deaf militia", or whatever the label is at any opportunity.... basically it just means anyone who disagrees with oneself.

For *myself,* my life is way better because of hearing aids. Seems like most of the people here who can be helped by aids or CIs are using them and feel like their lives are better for them. Does that make nearly everyone "audist?" I don't think so.

we've said this many many many many many many many many many times - we have no issue with any deafies who chose to have HA/CI and felt it helped with their lives. no problem at all. Some people beg to differ and I believe they're as ignorant as their counterpart.

I think what Grendel was talking about a while ago in another thread about the gymnastics instructor who wouldn't teach her daughter's deaf friend properly is a good example of an "audist" - someone who believes that a deaf child, because of her deafness, can't do something that has absolutely nothing to do with her hearing ability.

you get to label that instructor as audist and we can't? You could have just called her as ignorant or uninformed.

As for "journey into deafhood" - everyone has their own journey in life. Some of us are journeying towards fitness, or towards becoming better educated, or towards a greater sense of happiness in their personal relationships. If someone feels that journeying into d-or (D)eafhood is their personal journey, fine by me. And if not, I've also got no quarrel with it.

Why can't we all just respect each other's paths, rather than trying to force everyone who is hard-of-hearing or deaf on to this same "journey?"

exactly!!!!! to each their own!

then why can't kokonut respect people choosing to call it as their "deafhood" rather than forcing everyone to forget about "deafhood" label?

 

[missywinks]

Which I'm not, and I've never said anything remotely like that. Yet, a certain person still loves to toss around the "audist" label at any opportunity. Basically it just means anyone who disagrees with her, rather than anything substantive.

For *myself,* my life is way better because of hearing aids. Seems like most of the people here who can be helped by aids or CIs are using them and feel like their lives are better for them. Does that make nearly everyone "audist?" I don't think so.

I think what Grendel was talking about a while ago in another thread about the gymnastics instructor who wouldn't teach her daughter's deaf friend properly is a good example of an "audist" - someone who believes that a deaf child, because of her deafness, can't do something that has absolutely nothing to do with her hearing ability.

As for "journey into deafhood" - everyone has their own journey in life. Some of us are journeying towards fitness, or towards becoming better educated, or towards a greater sense of happiness in their personal relationships. If someone feels that journeying into d-or (D)eafhood is their personal journey, fine by me. And if not, I've also got no quarrel with it.

Why can't we all just respect each other's paths, rather than trying to force everyone who is hard-of-hearing or deaf on to this same "journey?"

We are not saying that at all. In fact, many D/deaf people wear hearing aids or have cochlear implants. Again for the 100,000th time, it is their own journey into Deafhood. It includes people from all walks of life. Its how they define themselves. Please read the whole thread before assuming what we meant.

 

[missywinks]

Which I'm not, and I've never said anything remotely like that. Yet, a certain person still loves to toss around the "audist" label at any opportunity. Basically it just means anyone who disagrees with her, rather than anything substantive.

For *myself,* my life is way better because of hearing aids. Seems like most of the people here who can be helped by aids or CIs are using them and feel like their lives are better for them. Does that make nearly everyone "audist?" I don't think so.

I think what Grendel was talking about a while ago in another thread about the gymnastics instructor who wouldn't teach her daughter's deaf friend properly is a good example of an "audist" - someone who believes that a deaf child, because of her deafness, can't do something that has absolutely nothing to do with her hearing ability.

As for "journey into deafhood" - everyone has their own journey in life. Some of us are journeying towards fitness, or towards becoming better educated, or towards a greater sense of happiness in their personal relationships. If someone feels that journeying into d-or (D)eafhood is their personal journey, fine by me. And if not, I've also got no quarrel with it.

Why can't we all just respect each other's paths, rather than trying to force everyone who is hard-of-hearing or deaf on to this same "journey?"

That is the WHOLE point of Deafhood. Everyone is on THEIR OWN JOURNEY in discovering themselves and their place on the earth. It is all about our individual experience growing up as a deaf/hh person in this society and how we and others handle it.

 

[TXgolfer]

That is the WHOLE point of Deafhood. Everyone is on THEIR OWN JOURNEY in discovering themselves and their place on the earth. It is all about our individual experience growing up as a deaf/hh person in this society and how we and others handle it.

I agree with you 100%. I am pretty sure BeachGirl does as well... But let me ask you.....what do you think of the posters who feel the need to comment negatively or critically on one's journey? We have had many people in both threads discuss their journey and I have enjoyed reading each one. But I find it frustrating that a couple of posters have felt the need to suggest others are not doing it right. How do you feel about this?

 

[flip]

You bad!

Heh.
To clarify, deaf militia is to me a healty response to audism.

While it's true that deaf militants are in a minority within the Deaf community, they are still part of the deaf community, especially among young people. The existence of deaf militia only tells me that audism is very alive and kicking.

I perfectly understand people who distances themselves from any militia, but licking the arse of audists when they use "deaf militia" as an insulting term without naming who they are talking about, isn't necessary, IMO.

Let's not forget the audist guerrillas who closes down deaf schools, pushes CI, and spread audist propaganda on deaf sites.

Cheers from the battlefield,
Lieutenant Flip

 

[deafskeptic]

then why can't kokonut respect people choosing to call it as their "deafhood" rather than forcing everyone to forget about "deafhood" label?

Exactly. It's his prerogative if he doesn't want to embrace "deafhood" or be part of the Deaf community. He doesn't have to post in this thread.


The part I find objective is him ramming his own views on those of us who disagree with him on anything. He seems to hold those who don't confirm to his views on deafhood and politics in contempt.

 

[Hohtopics]

Methinks he doth protest too much.

Speaking of protesting too much...

 

[Hohtopics]

You obviously still don't understand the difference between someone who id's as deaf, and someone who id's as Deaf. Someone who id's as deaf has not internalized it to the degree that is has become a part of their identity.

And that's for you to decide? The degree it becomes a part of their identity?

 

[Grummer]

kokonut need to be sectioned.