Do you guys embrace your hearing loss/deafness?!

TheWriteAlex said:
^^^

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 preoccupied themselves with with these questions 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. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Not the same thing, not even close. And I actually wondered if anybody would even try and bring that "example" up about the "N" word.This isn't a slur word we're talking about but about hearing. And hearing people have "normal" or "standard" hearing in terms of their ability to hear. It's a factual statement. They have "normal hearing" based on any standardize hearing tests. The same goes for having "normal vision" based on any standardized vision tests. Or even "normal blood pressure," too. When someone says, "normal hearing," we know what he/she is talking about. No need to get into these navel gazing exercises.
 
Kokonut, did you spend your entire life try be "normal"? Have teachers ask why you not talk normal? Have your parents wonder why you can not be normal like their ther children? Have speech therapists conspiratorially tell you they have tips help you appear normal? Have other kids not want friend you because you not normal? Have educators tell your parents you not normal, you uneducatably retarded?

DID YOU SPEND YOUR WHOLE LIFE TRY MEET STUPID ARBITRARY DEFINITION "NORMAL" SET OUT BY HEARIES? AND FAIL EVERY FREAKING TIME?

How DARE you tell us "normal" not slur word. How dare you.
 
So sick of this "normal" discussion. Take it to PM.

Moving on. I embrace my Deafness. I love going to DNO. I don't go every month if I can't. My hearing honey of 5 years has gone through most of his ASL classes now, he only has a few left. We love conversing in ASL! I've given up using the phone - I refuse to use it anymore to accommodate my parents which were the only people I was using it for before, and I can no longer hear enough to hold a conversation without saying "what?" every other word :) I love my HAs, but I can take it or leave it when I'm having a bad hearing day (it has been fluctuating lately). My boss and co-workers are super-nice about getting my attention and not making me go to staff meetings when no interpreter is present, and they're always willing to pay for one when we can find one in time. I love not hearing sounds at night so I get a great night's sleep minus lightning and insomnia. I love being deaf on weekends because I've got a houseful of cats and dogs that will play with their furmom, deaf or not, and a honey that knows to not even talk to me but sign to me :) And hey, I can drive !! :D
 
kokonut said:
Not the same thing, not even close. And I actually wondered if anybody would even try and bring that "example" up about the "N" word.This isn't a slur word we're talking about but about hearing. And hearing people have "normal" or "standard" hearing in terms of their ability to hear. It's a factual statement. They have "normal hearing" based on any standardize hearing tests. The same goes for having "normal vision" based on any standardized vision tests. Or even "normal blood pressure," too. When someone says, "normal hearing," we know what he/she is talking about. No need to get into these navel gazing exercises.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that the two examples are actually VERY close (normal hearing could be construed as a slur when used by an audist, just as the N word is not necessarily construed as a slur when used by a black person), I brought it up as an example to show how words have different meaning and intent depending on who uses them and in what context. Since you don't seem to understand this, let's try something different that is a bit closer.

"Hearing impaired."

Very different meanings to and audist or nonaudist, used in very different ways. Would you like to argue against that one?
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Aside from the fact that the two examples are actually VERY close (normal hearing could be construed as a slur when used by an audist, just as the N word is not necessarily construed as a slur when used by a black person), I brought it up as an example to show how words have different meaning and intent depending on who uses them and in what context. Since you don't seem to understand this, let's try something different that is a bit closer.

"Hearing impaired."

Very different meanings to and audist or nonaudist, used in very different ways. Would you like to argue against that one?
Click to expand...

*Walking away this one*

Not. Worth. It.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
^^^

Your argument is flawed.
Click to expand...

No, sorry, yours is.
All words are not created equal.
This is why, for example, one can not say certain words in public.
Like- one can say "sonofagun" out loud, but can not say "sonofab..." .

That's why it doesn't matter who says "normal hearing", because it simply mean
the same thing always - the average hearing such as an average hearing people have. Here, there, everywhere.

It is also always used as simply a guidance for comparison in our many different types and degrees of hearing LOSS.

Nothing less, nothing more, period.

There is no subtext, overtext, intext, undertext, sidetext - nothing,
just a standard, common, reasonable term of description of a hearing.

Whether it is used by "non-audist" or "audist" - it always is just a DESCRIPTION of a hearing.


I can agree with you only on this - that the whole description can be used
in a SENTENCE that is intended to be hurtful.

Like for example, one can say "well at least I have normal hearing you CI-borg" - yes this is hurtful REMARK.
Or, if you prefer something "audist" - "well you could hear normal with CI" -
okay that can sound biased to you.

The term itself, "normal + hearing" however, remains still neutral descriptive
in both cases.
It just pertain to the hearing perceived the same way as Bebonang has mean it.
sorry.

Fuzzy
 
Fuzzy, with all due respect, how it possible you DHH whichever and still can straight-face say normal neutral descriptive word?
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Aside from the fact that the two examples are actually VERY close (normal hearing could be construed as a slur when used by an audist, just as the N word is not necessarily construed as a slur when used by a black person), I brought it up as an example to show how words have different meaning and intent depending on who uses them and in what context. Since you don't seem to understand this, let's try something different that is a bit closer.

"Hearing impaired."

Very different meanings to and audist or nonaudist, used in very different ways. Would you like to argue against that one?
Click to expand...

I see "hearing impaired" relating to the hearing itself....not about the person...on having a hearing loss. Again, I disagree with your assessment about the "N" word. One has a history and context that was meant to be used as derogatory term in the first place. The other one, "normal hearing," is not a slur in any typical conversation. I see it differently but I know where and what you're trying to get at but I don't see it that way.
 
Sunshine said:
Kokonut, did you spend your entire life try be "normal"? Have teachers ask why you not talk normal? Have your parents wonder why you can not be normal like their ther children? Have speech therapists conspiratorially tell you they have tips help you appear normal? Have other kids not want friend you because you not normal? Have educators tell your parents you not normal, you uneducatably retarded?

DID YOU SPEND YOUR WHOLE LIFE TRY MEET STUPID ARBITRARY DEFINITION "NORMAL" SET OUT BY HEARIES? AND FAIL EVERY FREAKING TIME?

How DARE you tell us "normal" not slur word. How dare you.
Click to expand...

Sunshine,
because a word that has an international definition in a dictionary
does not become something else overnight based on very personal experience.

Like with the N word, it must fulfill certain criteria for that to happen.

As sorry as I am for every hurtful experience the deaf people had to undergo,
and it pains me to read what you wrote,

the thing is, the word "normal" itself is so far considered by dictionary
as not a slur.

And it is not this itself word that have hurt you - it's PEOPLE.
I wish I was there and could protect you from them doing that :(

Fuzzy
 
kokonut said:
I see "hearing impaired" relating to the hearing itself....not about the person...on having a hearing loss. Again, I disagree with your assessment about the "N" word. One has a history and context that was meant to be used as derogatory term in the first place. The other one, "normal hearing," is not a slur in any typical conversation. I see it differently but I know where and what you're trying to get at but I don't see it that way.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, there is a history. One of oppressionagainst deaf/hh people just like the oppression of black people. Jim crow laws=Alexander Graham Bell
 
shel90 said:
Oh yes, there is a history. One of oppressionagainst deaf/hh people just like the oppression of black people. Jim crow laws=Alexander Graham Bell
Click to expand...

I'm talking about when people talk about hearing people described as having "normal hearing," we already know what they're talking about.
 
The funny thing is that they are talking about two different things.

Audiofuzzy - we get it, the literal dictionary definition of the word normal stays the same no matter who says it. WriteAlex is saying it's the context in which the word normal was said or written that adds implied meaning and tone to the sentence, as well as the known history of the person who said it. And he used an excellent example, the phrase "hearing impaired."

I really don't get why you're being so argumentative. You're both right. Move on.
 
Audiofuzzy said:
No, sorry, yours is.
All words are not created equal.
This is why, for example, one can not say certain words in public.
Like- one can say "sonofagun" out loud, but can not say "sonofab..." .

That's why it doesn't matter who says "normal hearing", because it simply mean
the same thing always - the average hearing such as an average hearing people have. Here, there, everywhere.

It is also always used as simply a guidance for comparison in our many different types and degrees of hearing LOSS.

Nothing less, nothing more, period.

There is no subtext, overtext, intext, undertext, sidetext - nothing,
just a standard, common, reasonable term of description of a hearing.

Whether it is used by "non-audist" or "audist" - it always is just a DESCRIPTION of a hearing.


I can agree with you only on this - that the whole description can be used
in a SENTENCE that is intended to be hurtful.

Like for example, one can say "well at least I have normal hearing you CI-borg" - yes this is hurtful REMARK.
Or, if you prefer something "audist" - "well you could hear normal with CI" -
okay that can sound biased to you.

The term itself, "normal + hearing" however, remains still neutral descriptive
in both cases.
It just pertain to the hearing perceived the same way as Bebonang has mean it.
sorry.

Fuzzy
Click to expand...

You basically prove my point with the examples of hurtful remarks. Those are good examples of how semantics shift depending on context and user, but what you are not realizing is that a term like "normal hearing" can be construed as hurtful in almost any instance. Again, it all depends on who is using it and who is listening. Who are you to decide if "normal hearing" is neutral? You don't.
 
Audiofuzzy said:
Sunshine,
because a word that has an international definition in a dictionary
does not become something else overnight based on very personal experience.

Like with the N word, it must fulfill certain criteria for that to happen.

As sorry as I am for every hurtful experience the deaf people had to undergo,
and it pains me to read what you wrote,

the thing is, the word "normal" itself is so far considered by dictionary
as not a slur.

And it is not this itself word that have hurt you - it's PEOPLE.
I wish I was there and could protect you from them doing that :(

Fuzzy
Click to expand...

I not only deaf person here tell you normal is slur word. Is not just my "very personal experience". Is entire deaf community basically.

Edit add - dictionary also say gay mean happy. And yes, gay mean happy. But how many people use this way anymore? Dictionary not keep up with common use.
 
Back
Top