jillio

Exactly. Unfortunately, some do not see the difference between making a statement regarding an action, and making a personal criticism. Tells me that we often hit too close to home with our observations of audism.

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

Daredevel7

We? Everyone here?

No one has ever said "You are an audist"?

I see.......

jillio

I don't think that you are getting the difference yet of audist perspective, or audist belief and "you are an audist." I have said that of more than one poster here, and I did so because they had their audist statements pointed out to them, yet refused to consider that what they believed was audist, and continued to insist that they were right.

Daredevel7

Nah, PFH implied that the terms "Audist statements" and "Audist perspectives" were used instead labeling them simply "audist". Which kinda makes me laugh because there's been MORE THAN a fair share of simply name calling (AUDIST!!!) around here on AD.

But yes, if things were calmer, then people would be composed and point out that they believe that statement/perspective to be a form of audism. Then, keeping with the calm status, people can accept it or deny it with rationale.

That would be cool. (But yea... in the back of my mind, I am thinking "YEA RIGHT, like that would happen")

(PS, I just realized that I'm kind of in the wrong thread to be talking about audism. Ill just talk about it in that Audist room over there.)

Bottesini

What an audist perspective! Talk about it from the rooftops! Don't keep it hidden.

__________________

jillio

And I just explained why I will call someone and audist rather than say they have an audist perspective or made an audist statement. Labeling them an audist only happens after they have shown, time and time again, that they are an audist because they are unwilling to change their audist beliefs and see the deaf perspective.

Frankly, everywhere is a good place to talk about audism. It needs to be forced into people's awareness to make any progress on getting rid of it.

GrendelQ

Nonsense. Stop attacking and take the rhetoric down a few notches. I'm certainly no one's victim. According to Beclak, I'm a cat. I prefer that.

__________________

GrendelQ

Because I mention to Flip (who used the term to self-identify) that I won't categorize individuals as "anti-CI" (oh, darn, did it again: meant to write a$@&-CI) I'm labeling others just by using the term? The only label I've employed in this thread was "Pain in the A$@" and that's a term of endearment, something I believe PFH works very hard at.

__________________

jillio

Okay. You are a catty victim.
At least that is the way you portray yourself when you continually communicate that you are being attacked and then respond with unnecessary sarcasm and examples of situations that don't apply in an attempt to deflect. Better?

jillio

What do you think labeling is? Duh. Such blindess. Sad.

deafdyke

Right on lady!!!! English is NOT like the Chinese languages where a difference in pitch (how you pronounce the word) turns a baby talk word into a swear or something like that. Speechreading is valid and NOT a crutch. Yes, there's value to auditory training, but it's not a tool you need to use all the time. Even HEARING people speechread! If you think you don't speechread, take a day where you blindfold yourself when you interact verbally with people. You'll see that yes you DO speechread!
Huh? I never got the vibe that Grendel is audist, except for the normal audist feelings that a lot of hearing parents have when they are still coming to terms with their kid as a Deaf person. And yes Grendel, you ARE very accepting and all.....but I do have to say that most hearing parents still have some audist attitudes. I don't mean that as an insult. More like.......Have you read about how in the old days parents were taught if they adopted a forigen kid, the best thing was to try to assimulate them into white mainstream culture, and they didn't "need" stuff like heritage camps?
It does take time to fully come to terms with a child's difference. It took me 18 years to come to terms with being hoh.
Oh, and jillo, I gotta say I don't think that Grendel is defending FJ and rick b/c they are audist. I think its more like she feels like you're criticzing them as parents. You aren't...you really aren't. But it might be taken that way.
Yes indeedy! Dead on.

GrendelQ

Using the term while saying that I refuse to label people as such and such is NOT labeling.

__________________

faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

then when you leave, i will.

posts from hell

lol, im not asking her to leave, for a reason. This is not who has a bigger dick contest. You've clearly won that, and now cya.

faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

guys, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that speech reading is natural, easy and can provide the entirety of spoken langauge and allow a deaf child to be able to develop fluent spoken language

and

claim that not providing ASL at all times is cruel and will leave a child with profound language deficits.

both can't be true.

Beowulf

Eh? Why not? I know children who speechread and use ASL, and they speak as well.

Banjo

Um... whatever.

Jiro

she left for several months. you didn't leave.

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

the claim is that a deaf child can fluently learn spoken language (without delays and deficits) through speech reading alone.

and i don't buy it. I think it is cruel, and most of the time futile. So many deaf people say that lipreading is nothing but guessing and it is exhausting and nearly impossible...so why also claim that it is a perfectly ligit way to learn fluent language?

either it doesn't work and is cruel or it works (and therefore is a perfectly acceptable choice).

posts from hell

Then you really dont know the capabilities of the deaf. I can speechread - very very good.

I wind up interpreting for people who have had a CI for their entire lives. Yes, this is my generation and I'm in the midst of it. And to be frank, I have to LOL at your statements because it truly shows how ignorant you are. The problem with you is your refusal of hearing us out...

Banjo

My wife is fluent in speechreading, just as she is fluent in ASL. She didn't grow up with just one method, you know.

Beowulf

Oh. I don't know about that claim being made, since I did not read most of this thread. I only speak for myself here when I say that I speak very fluent English and am an expert speechreader. I am not quite as fluent in ASL, since my receptive skills exceed those that are expressive. I cannot remember when I did not speechread, but the idea that I gained fluency of English through speechreading is something I doubt.

faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

if it is so easy, why are parents continually being told that it is cruel and that their children will end up with both language and cognitive issues if they choose that path? (as opposed to ASL)

Beowulf

It is only through the wisdom of hindsight that I agree it is cruel. Language and cognitive issues are not the only things that will arise.

deafdyke

What does that have to do with auditory-verbal therapy/auditory training?
Speechreading on its OWN cannot provide the entirity of spoken language....but as a COMBONATION, (meaning with auditory input) it can give a lot of access to spoken language. Ask any person who was hoh as a kid....they'll tell you they can do *gasp* BOTH!
I never said that not providing ASL at all times will leave a kid with profound language defiects. I do reconize the need for "hoh" style therapy intervention. But you can balance it. I just don't agree with the thinking that if minimal therapy is good, then that means that a kid's entire existence should be all about therapy therapy therapy 24/7....and that's basicly what AVT is about.
Even many orally trained kids have significent expressive written English issues.

posts from hell

Nobody said it was easy.... I shake my head at you

deafdyke

Yes, faire joure you are missing that even at Deaf Schools, kids got (and still get) extensive speech training/speech therapy. Not "survival speech" but extensive speech training/speech therapy.

deafdyke

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.. Oh, the IRONY!!! Would love love love for you to meet the presidents of Clarke, CID and the other oral programs out there.
So if speechreading is cruel and futile, then how come forcing a kid to exclusively use their residual hearing isn't?
We're not saying that speechreading ALONE can give fluent oral abilty..We're saying it's a useful tool that can be used as part of a bigger picture......

faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

the post was for the general audience, not you specifically.

but this one is aimed at you. You say that kids today don't need a lot of therapy but then in the same breath say that they still have language issues....uh, wouldn't that mean that they were in need of therapy?! If you are saying that they can acheive with minimal work, but still end up with "screwed up language" (including that legs, spiders example you throw around), that means they didn't have enough access to the language and therapy they needed when they were young...which is what you yourself are advocating!

shel90

I have also stated that I had audist views also and like you, I learned to amend my attitude as well.

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous