WFD now bans "deaf-mute" and "hearing impaired"

flip said:
IIRC, jews/israelittes divided between those who where both deaf and voice off, and those who could speak. Those who could speak had more rights. The reason was not that those who couldn't speak necessary was stupid, but it was hard for hearing people who didn't know sign language to know wheter that deaf person was reliable or not. Don't remember where I read about this, but think it was somewhere on the net.

If this is correct, at least, jews were honest about their limited abilities to judge deaf people.
Click to expand...

bold parts = thats the direct characterisitics of audism

Jews 'just being honest' hic its also about being 'holier than thou' (i dont know how to write this in a perfect formal manner right now) but it would go something like this; so they are 'granted permission' to justify their ignorance, and same time to make themselves look 'good' because 'they werent trying to deceive anyone' as would what their religion 'teaches'.....
still YUCK!
 
if anyone reads my previous post (think it was last week) I stated that something like 'i dislike all religions for that matter'...this is EXACTLY why i dont like religions, it 'looks nice' but really it is actually inherently evil......
 
just something else i want to say, now, IF WFD is effectively going to say (or said) ban Hearng-mute or hearing-impaired.
How effectively is that? i mean not as dictionary form? (meaning to say will dictionary publishers in near future is forced to comply to note this in the explanations of the word/s meaning? I doubt it.
another one, will it be actually enforced actually be enforced, passed on via global mandating of this, into more 'local' social policy enforcement? again i'd doubt it.

Lastly so often i have seen yellow 'signs' as in form as a sticker or folded cardboard notice on tables saying 'please tell us if you are hearing impaired' etc etc , imagine huge costs involved to overhual this, with this, would hearies bother? again Id doubt it....on other hand...throwing it out...would pose risk of greater ignorances and/or awkwardness at the counter being client/customers in waiting rooms, or library issuing desks and so on... ?

my post here is just a 'thought' on how well would the first stage translation into 'practice' following this ban.....it would be actually counter productive ??
i would think so.....
so hearing=impaired should stay, so we can tell from Real Deaf from otherwise a hearie-gone-physically deaf....like ew NEeed this for sake of our political strength kind of ironic? No?
 
Grummer said:
bold parts = thats the direct characterisitics of audism

Jews 'just being honest' hic its also about being 'holier than thou' (i dont know how to write this in a perfect formal manner right now) but it would go something like this; so they are 'granted permission' to justify their ignorance, and same time to make themselves look 'good' because 'they werent trying to deceive anyone' as would what their religion 'teaches'.....
still YUCK!
Click to expand...
You have a point there. I just liked that they didn't necessary look at deaf people as dumb, but didn't know how to figure out if a deaf person is sane or not. That's includes a lot more self insight than some hearing psychologist display when when trying to diagnose a deaf person.

Still ignorance and audist yeah.
 
Grummer said:
just something else i want to say, now, IF WFD is effectively going to say (or said) ban Hearng-mute or hearing-impaired.
How effectively is that? i mean not as dictionary form? (meaning to say will dictionary publishers in near future is forced to comply to note this in the explanations of the word/s meaning? I doubt it.
another one, will it be actually enforced actually be enforced, passed on via global mandating of this, into more 'local' social policy enforcement? again i'd doubt it.

Lastly so often i have seen yellow 'signs' as in form as a sticker or folded cardboard notice on tables saying 'please tell us if you are hearing impaired' etc etc , imagine huge costs involved to overhual this, with this, would hearies bother? again Id doubt it....on other hand...throwing it out...would pose risk of greater ignorances and/or awkwardness at the counter being client/customers in waiting rooms, or library issuing desks and so on... ?

my post here is just a 'thought' on how well would the first stage translation into 'practice' following this ban.....it would be actually counter productive ??
i would think so.....
so hearing=impaired should stay, so we can tell from Real Deaf from otherwise a hearie-gone-physically deaf....like ew NEeed this for sake of our political strength kind of ironic? No?
Click to expand...
Hearings gone deaf are deaf people with damaged hearings? Born deaf and late deafened. Residudental hearing?

My English sucks, but my question is do we really need the term hearing impaired? Can we get rid of t the same way we can trade deaf mute with voice off visualizer?

You raise some interesting questions, that I miss from wfd. What are we supposed to use instead?
 
flip said:
Hearings gone deaf are deaf people with damaged hearings? Born deaf and late deafened. Residudental hearing?

My English sucks, but my question is do we really need the term hearing impaired? Can we get rid of t the same way we can trade deaf mute with voice off visualizer?

You raise some interesting questions, that I miss from wfd. What are we supposed to use instead?
Click to expand...

Your English doesnt not sucks, dont fool me, ive seen worse. Youre one of the very few here who have good (or great) commands of English. Besides this, no, I would not imagine if WFD would really consider these question seriously, because I feel WFD is not 'interested in doing so' but more to the point, I believe it is, political and are probably 'falling in' to obligation the whims of those want to eradicate Deafness according to the medical modelist, which by means, a reinforced move to cochlear implants and mainstreaming. The term, "Hearing Impaired" is not only "outdated" but it is now seen as a "weapon" by those are proponants of "Deaf culture" so to undermind this position further what seem to be, is that in order to weaken the arguement or to "neutralise", their move to "modernise" the Political Correct terminological inferences, would be to abolish "Hearing Impaired".
Now, what I am really saying here is, it seems to be the case that, its abolishment has a characteristic of a double edged sword, it cuts the 'old meaning' and its negative connontions associated with it, by appearing as a triumph over the much-debated disapproval from the Deaf Cultural's view (which is actually quite extra-ordinary, how come it is not celebrated?, interesting, and more interesting is that, upon this dropping of the term, it has left many of us bewildered on what to call the hoh, hearing impaired, non cultural deaf, or late-deafened and finally, the confused-not-yet-cultural-deaf - which the public are starting to catch on - well ahead of the media's interference!!. As for the later term (confused-not-yet-Deaf) is being seen as a bad status which has a potential to provoke greater public awareness on the failure of Deaf Education associated with Cochlear implant and mainstream alike. It really seem to come across as 'Ok we'd ban it', but we will also make sure there's no Deaf anymore".....interesting right?!
Therefore, having said all this above, to sum this, in few word it would be akin to that, in a sense, it is a political basklash.
just my 2 cents
(C)2012 Grummer's post
 
Back
Top