Do you guys embrace your hearing loss/deafness?!

Clarity: as per post 278, DeafCaroline imply you do same thing you espouse against kokonut. Pay attention please.
 
kokonut said:
Hence, the double standard....plus a dose of hypocrisy. It's an attempt to draw a line in the sand of what's "allowed"based on a person's "status" or "standing" and assumes the worse.
Click to expand...

It's not a double standard at all. The difference is in how it's used. AudioFuzzy is ten times closer to understanding this than you are. These things are taken as a whole.

I can be accused of being an audist just as much as you can. It's much less likely to happen to me because I understand what it means to be an audist and what to look for. Heck, I have been surprised a few times and had to sit back and think about it a few times. Ive even written a few posts then deleated them before posting because it carried audists views. I know what my background is and how it influences my way of thinking. I was raised by very nice pair of audists. The things we learn growing up are not easily unlearned. If you do not understand (or accept) that you and I both have audist tendencies, then there is only so much I can do to help you.
 
The difference is in the person who is using it and their history of audist and inciting posts on AD regarding hearing loss.

THAT is the difference.
 
Cheetah said:
It's not a double standard at all. The difference is in how it's used. AudioFuzzy is ten times closer to understanding this than you are. These things are taken as a whole.

I can be accused of being an audist just as much as you can. It's much less likely to happen to me because I understand what it means to be an audist and what to look for. Heck, I have been surprised a few times and had to sit back and think about it a few times. Ive even written a few posts then deleated them before posting because it carried audists views. I know what my background is and how it influences my way of thinking. I was raised by very nice pair of audists. The things we learn growing up are not easily unlearned. If you do not understand (or accept) that you and I both have audist tendencies, then there is only so much I can do to help you.
Click to expand...

It's a double standard. It's an attempt to draw a line in the sand of what's "allowed" based on a person's "status" or "standing" and essentially "get away with it." Look at the picture I posted above. It's this attempt to draw a line in the sand. Everyone is doing it. It's also a lot navel gazing in trying to see where a particular person stand whether he/she gets the "heave ho" and get labeled. I know where you're getting at but, please, don't presume to know what I understand. It simply reeks of political correctness at times.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
The difference is in the person who is using it and their history of audist and inciting posts on AD regarding hearing loss.

THAT is the difference.
Click to expand...

Maybe...maybe not. I think it's a matter of context, a difference in perception. Again, my reference to this intense navel gazing.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
The difference is in the person who is using it and their history of audist and inciting posts on AD regarding hearing loss.

THAT is the difference.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly why it is hypocrisy and double standard.
I couldn't have said it better.

Because, sweetheart, you just proved my point -

the only person who is allowed to use the term "normal"
is the person who isn't accused of being "audist".

Thus by merely personal preferences here.

Certain person can throw "normal" left, right, up, down, forward, backward,
lengthwise, endwise, - you name it,
and it is perfectly alright because that person is considered not AUDIST
and her opinion - doesn't matter if it is TRUE or NOT- not considered "enticing".

Hock, pock, crock and baloney if you ask me.


Fuzzy
 
kokonut said:
It's a double standard. It's an attempt to draw a line in the sand of what's "allowed" based on a person's "status" or "standing" and essentially "get away with it."
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I am saying.

Fuzzy
 
Audiofuzzy said:
And that's exactly why it is hypocrisy and double standard.
I couldn't have said it better.

Because, sweetheart, you just proved my point -

the only person who is allowed to use the term "normal"
is the person who isn't accused of being "audist".

Thus by merely personal preferences here.

Certain person can throw "normal" left, right, up, down, forward, backward,
lengthwise, endwise, - you name it,
and it is perfectly alright because that person is considered not AUDIST
and her opinion - doesn't matter if it is TRUE or NOT- not considered "enticing".

Hock, pock, crock and baloney if you ask me.


Fuzzy
Click to expand...

Enticing is wrong. TWA said inciting. Inciting is correct. It is meaning to start a fight.
 
Audiofuzzy said:
And that's exactly why it is hypocrisy and double standard.
I couldn't have said it better.

Because, sweetheart, you just proved my point -

the only person who is allowed to use the term "normal"
is the person who isn't accused of being "audist".

Thus by merely personal preferences here.

Certain person can throw "normal" left, right, up, down, forward, backward,
lengthwise, endwise, - you name it,
and it is perfectly alright because that person is considered not AUDIST
and her opinion - doesn't matter if it is TRUE or NOT- not considered "enticing".

Hock, pock, crock and baloney if you ask me.


Fuzzy
Click to expand...

Nobody is disallowed the use of any word on AD. Not that I'm aware of, anyway. When a poster has a certain history of making audist comments and inciting the community, they've (deservedly) purchase themselves extra scrutiny and contempt. Bebonang does not have a history of making audist comments. In fact, quite the opposite. She may have made a faux pas, but nobody is going to hold it against her. The same cannot be said for all AD members. :cool2:

You are arguing on the basis that this instance of the word "normal hearing" and who uses it is an immutable occurrence with no context, but most people here don't see it like that, and if this were a criminal trial, the judge and jury wouldn't either. Intent is determined, in part, by precedence. When Bebonang says "normal hearing" we don't see her as guilty of intentional audism because she has no past history of it.

Call it a double standard all you want, but you're not going to convince anyone.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Nobody is disallowed the use of any word on AD. Not that I'm aware of, anyway. When a poster has a certain history of making audist comments and inciting the community, they've (deservedly) purchase themselves extra scrutiny and contempt. Bebonang does not have a history of making audist comments. In fact, quite the opposite. She may have made a faux pas, but nobody is going to hold it against her. The same cannot be said for all AD members. :cool2:

You are arguing on the basis that this instance of the word "normal hearing" and who uses it is an immutable occurrence with no context, but most people here don't see it like that, and if this were a criminal trial, the judge and jury wouldn't either. Intent is determined, in part, by precedence. When Bebonang says "normal hearing" we don't see her as guilty of intentional audism because she has no past history of it.

Call it a double standard all you want, but you're not going to convince anyone.
Click to expand...

Hence, the picture I produced as an example of attempting to draw that line.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Nobody is disallowed the use of any word on AD. Not that I'm aware of, anyway. When a poster has a certain history of making audist comments and inciting the community, they've (deservedly) purchase themselves extra scrutiny and contempt. Bebonang does not have a history of making audist comments. In fact, quite the opposite. She may have made a faux pas, but nobody is going to hold it against her. The same cannot be said for all AD members. :cool2:

You are arguing on the basis that this instance of the word "normal hearing" and who uses it is an immutable occurrence with no context, but most people here don't see it like that, and if this were a criminal trial, the judge and jury wouldn't either. Intent is determined, in part, by precedence. When Bebonang says "normal hearing" we don't see her as guilty of intentional audism because she has no past history of it.

Call it a double standard all you want, but you're not going to convince anyone.
Click to expand...


Alex,
The word, or the term, "normal", as I stated before, has only ONE meaning:

a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or
principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

Normal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

now,
regardless of WHO uses it, the meaning of the word/term normal remains
unchanged.

The objection I had, and have, and will always have,
were/is in regards to attacking people based on personal perception
on whether or not they are seen as "audist" etc or not.

mind you, a person may NOT be an audist but may be accused of being one
in which case such is a FALSE accusation to being with,
yet sadly accepted by many as true.

If the person is not perceived as an "audist", then the use of "normal" is looked upon as fine and dandy,
but if the person is looked upon as an "audist" then holey moley, heavens watch out!

May I point out "normal" has the same meaning in both cases, though?

Whether non-audist says "normal hearing" or an audist says "normal hearing"
IT MEAN THE EXACT SAME THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


When you will see (or anyone, for that matter)
that arguing about who is allowed to use this word, or any word for that matter, is a MOOT POINT!!!!??


But an attitude in this matter, matters and that's why I am arguing about it.



Last but not least - nice BEBONANG didn't make any faux - pas!!!!!!

The lady absolutely didn't!!
She used the term correctly, as it should be.

It is just a coincidence she is being used as an example, an excellent example btw, :)

and it could have been anybody with the like profile to illustrate such an example.
It just happened it was Ms Bebonang who used the term is all.

But she wasn't neither wrong nor improper in using the term,
nor 'politically proper' person to use it - she just did.


Fuzzy
 
^^^

Words NEVER mean the same exact thing when they are uttered by users with a different mindset. An audist and a strong Deaf person do not have the same mindset. No way, no how.

Would you argue that the N word used by a white supremacist carries the same meaning as when it is used by a black person? Of course not. It is the same deal here. It all depends on the intent and motivation of the person who uses it. Words have empty meaning until they are filled with context.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of money on the fact that when Bebonang says "normal hearing" she does not mean it in the same way as a previously identified audist. Linguists occupied themselves with with this question a long time ago, and guess what? They said the same things about language and words as what I am trying to tell you.

Your argument is flawed.
 
Back
Top