CI--Deaf or Hearing?

[GrendelQ]

Deaf militant, when used by a certain segment of the population, is intended to be perjorative. When used by another segment, it is merely a descriptive.

Again with the back handed slurs. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that DC has thought about these topics a great deal, and has spent a great amount of time in educating herself. To imply that she had not thought about it is another way of trying to insult but leave yourself leeway to back pedal.:roll:

So, because I realized I was posting so many questions to DC, and didn't want her to feel obligated to answer any and all, you think I'm insulting her intelligence? You are ridiculous and outrageous in your attempts to stir up controversy and bad feelings among forum members.

 

[jillio]

You are such a piece of work. WTF are you drumming up today? An imaginary person I'm attacking, an imaginary person I'm defending? Your nonsense is over the top.

The heat must be getting to you, Grendel. You are more transparent that you think you are. You have been told by more than one in the last few posts who you are defending, and you even stated who it was in your first post.

My, my. Resorting to ad hominems? Take a deep breath. You defensiveness is hanging out again.

 

[jillio]

So, because I realized I was posting so many questions to DC, and didn't want her to feel obligated to answer any and all, you think I'm insulting her intelligence? You are ridiculous and outrageous in your attempts to stir up controversy and bad feelings among forum members.

No, that isn't the reason I see you insulting her intelligence. I already explained to you where the insult occurred. Now you are trying to back pedal and say, "I was just being considerate!" That is the leeway I was talking about. I predicted this before you even posted again.

 

[Beowulf]

So, because I realized I was posting so many questions to DC, and didn't want her to feel obligated to answer any and all, you think I'm insulting her intelligence? You are ridiculous and outrageous in your attempts to stir up controversy and bad feelings among forum members.

Whoa, whoa. There are no bad feelings, honest. This is just a dialogue and we are ALL learning. We respect you, believe me.
Now, let's take a keep breath.
Okay, commence screaming.

 

[GrendelQ]

The heat must be getting to you, Grendel. You are more transparent that you think you are. You have been told by more than one in the last few posts who you are defending, and you even stated who it was in your first post.

My, my. Resorting to ad hominems? Take a deep breath. You defensiveness is hanging out again.

"The heat must be getting to you, Grendel. ... My, my. Resorting to ad hominems?" Counseling yourself? Good.

 

[DeafCaroline]

DC, thanks for answering! I have a bunch of questions, if you feel like answering, great if not, of if you haven't given it much thought, no big deal. It looks like you think of "Deaf militant" as a pejorative term, if you say that's an insult. Why is that? Do you consider opposition to CIs in children as a defining position for Deaf militancy? How do you see "Deaf militants" differing in approach or perspective from 'those expressing opposition to pediatric CIs'? Is it a matter of how that expression is conducted or of the platform of beliefs itself?

I think to brand all Deaf as Deaf militants IS perjorative especially when it's done so to ridicule or devalue their views and concerns.

No, I don't think opposition to CIs in babies is a militant view. I was speaking in reference to drphil flinging that label about. But you know this already. I'm getting the impression you're being deliberately obtuse.

To me militant means aggressive, combative, creating riots, and breaking the law for a cause. Did you know in the 90s, the deaf community was not granted any access to any meetings regarding CIs in deaf babies and that this lockout is what created the uproar? That the hearing world did not care what the deaf had to say about implantation of deaf babies? No wonder some Deaf people got very mad and made a scene about it and for this, they were called militants by the media and the hearing world. I can't tell you how many times I've read on the internet that deaf people who don't implant their babies are selfish coldhearted evil assholes so naturally it's not surprising that they would be the same people to brand the Deaf as militants.

 

[GrendelQ]

The heat must be getting to you, Grendel. You are more transparent that you think you are. You have been told by more than one in the last few posts who you are defending, and you even stated who it was in your first post.

My, my. Resorting to ad hominems? Take a deep breath. You defensiveness is hanging out again.

OK, so I looked back to see what the heck you are referring to, in terms of defending someone. In my first post today I brought up your inconsistency, in which you stated that sweetmind is a deaf militant, and then a post or two later in which you said there were no such thing as deaf militants, you knew of none. I get it now, this is probably irking the living daylights out of you, and because your head would explode if you ever forced yourself to admit a mistake of any kind, you are insult vomiting your anger all over me now, for no reason whatsoever. Please clean up after yourself when done.

 

[jillio]

"The heat must be getting to you, Grendel. ... My, my. Resorting to ad hominems?" Counseling yourself? Good.

Evidently, you are unaware of what exactly constitutes an ad hominem. Seriously, Grendel, let go of your defensiveness. It makes it impossible to communicate with you on an adult level.

 

[jillio]

I think to brand all Deaf as Deaf militants IS perjorative especially when it's done so to ridicule or devalue their views and concerns.

No, I don't think opposition to CIs in babies is a militant view. I was speaking in reference to drphil flinging that label about. But you know this already. I'm getting the impression you're being deliberately obtuse.

To me militant means aggressive, combative, creating riots, and breaking the law for a cause. Did you know in the 90s, the deaf community was not granted any access to any meetings regarding CIs in deaf babies and that this lockout is what created the uproar? That the hearing world did not care what the deaf had to say about implantation of deaf babies? No wonder some Deaf people got very mad and made a scene about it and for this, they were called militants by the media and the hearing world. I can't tell you how many times I've read on the internet that deaf people who don't implant their babies are selfish coldhearted evil assholes so naturally it's not surprising that they would be the same people to brand the Deaf as militants.

On this very forum, I was told I took the easy way out by not implanting my son. This was by one of the CI militants that Beo was referring to. I have also been told that I was deliberately depriving him of being able to communicate with the hearing by not implanting. I have been told that I uncaringly made his life harder than it needed to be by the same CI militants and Oral militants. There is quite the history of such things around this forum. Some have been around long enough to have witnessed that history. Some have not.

 

[jillio]

OK, so I looked back to see what the heck you are referring to, in terms of defending someone. In my first post today I brought up your inconsistency, in which you stated that sweetmind is a deaf militant, and then a post or two later in which you said there were no such thing as deaf militants, you knew of none. I get it now, this is probably irking the living daylights out of you, and because your head would explode if you ever forced yourself to admit a mistake of any kind, you are insult vomiting your anger all over me now, for no reason whatsoever. Please clean up after yourself when done.

Purposely obtuse.:roll: I explained my posts to you, which you took out of context. Who was I replying to when I stated that sweetmind is a Deaf militant? Therein lies the answer to whom you are defending. I hope you can put the pieces of the puzzle together. The rest of us figured it out several posts ago.

 

[jillio]

I think to brand all Deaf as Deaf militants IS perjorative especially when it's done so to ridicule or devalue their views and concerns.

No, I don't think opposition to CIs in babies is a militant view. I was speaking in reference to drphil flinging that label about. But you know this already. I'm getting the impression you're being deliberately obtuse.

To me militant means aggressive, combative, creating riots, and breaking the law for a cause. Did you know in the 90s, the deaf community was not granted any access to any meetings regarding CIs in deaf babies and that this lockout is what created the uproar? That the hearing world did not care what the deaf had to say about implantation of deaf babies? No wonder some Deaf people got very mad and made a scene about it and for this, they were called militants by the media and the hearing world. I can't tell you how many times I've read on the internet that deaf people who don't implant their babies are selfish coldhearted evil assholes so naturally it's not surprising that they would be the same people to brand the Deaf as militants.

And those that defend those widespread and insulting generalizations are intending to ridicule, as well. They are simply doing it in a more covert manner.

 

[jillio]

Stop behaving like such a belligerent jack azz. Ours: you, me, everyone on this thread, on AD. People who have an interest in rights and advocacy for those who are deaf. Our community, our society.

I will ask again. Deaf or hearing society? Deaf or hearing community? Seems you have an objection to answering. "Our" community, "our" society is vague and over inclusive when discussing the benefits of having a Deaf militant in a position to persuade politically.

 

[GrendelQ]

I think to brand all Deaf as Deaf militants IS perjorative especially when it's done so to ridicule or devalue their views and concerns.

No, I don't think opposition to CIs in babies is a militant view. I was speaking in reference to drphil flinging that label about. But you know this already. I'm getting the impression you're being deliberately obtuse.

To me militant means aggressive, combative, creating riots, and breaking the law for a cause. Did you know in the 90s, the deaf community was not granted any access to any meetings regarding CIs in deaf babies and that this lockout is what created the uproar? That the hearing world did not care what the deaf had to say about implantation of deaf babies? No wonder some Deaf people got very mad and made a scene about it and for this, they were called militants by the media and the hearing world. I can't tell you how many times I've read on the internet that deaf people who don't implant their babies are selfish coldhearted evil assholes so naturally it's not surprising that they would be the same people to brand the Deaf as militants.

I think what I'm seeing are some widely varied impressions of what a Deaf militant is, which probably explains confusion in both new people on the board and veterans. You seem to see the term as an externally defined pejorative, an insult referring to combative, violent behaviors of those who are against CIs in children, Beo seems to sees it as self-defined role as 'firebrand' and d/Deaf activist in general. And I've got some impression, probably based heavily on the individuals I know, one personally, some others more distantly, of those who self-identify as 'Deaf militants" as activists for a range of causes of benefit to the deaf community, not just armchair QBs, but who engage aggressively with organizations and legislative bodies.

 

[GrendelQ]

I will ask again. Deaf or hearing society? Seems you have an objection to answering.

My goodness, you are being obtuse: read again. I responded in the very same post you quoted:

"Stop behaving like such a belligerent jack azz. Ours: you, me, everyone on this thread, on AD. People who have an interest in rights and advocacy for those who are deaf. Our community, our society."​

I'd use different words to try to clarify some confusion you have, but you'd accuse me of twisting words. So I'll repeat it: When I said our community, our society, I meant you, me, everyone on this thread, on AD. People who have an interest in rights and advocacy for those who are deaf. That's our community, our society.

 

[jillio]

I don't think there is much variance at all in the way that we are defining the term. There is a variance in the way the hearing, and the hearing think, not only define it, but use it. The hearing purpose of using the term is not the same as the Deaf purpose in using the term. The hearing devised the term, and continue to use it as a form of social control.

 

[jillio]

My goodness, you are being obtuse: read again. I responded in the very same post you quoted:

"Stop behaving like such a belligerent jack azz. Ours: you, me, everyone on this thread, on AD. People who have an interest in rights and advocacy for those who are deaf. Our community, our society."​

I'd use different words to try to clarify some confusion you have, but you'd accuse me of twisting words. So I'll repeat it: When I said our community, our society, I meant you, me, everyone on this thread, on AD. People who have an interest in rights and advocacy for those who are deaf. That's our community, our society.

Using a lot of words, and still not answering the question.:roll: Not everyone on AD belongs to the same community, and they certainly don't participate in the same society. So, "our" is useless in defining which community and society you are referring to.

 

[sallylou]

Wirelessly posted (droid)

Of course, the people who use that term intend it as an insult. I refuse to allow any term to have power over me. I like to reclaim the words people try to use as weapons. Maybe we should have a Deaf militant walk? The slit walks have been very popular recently.

 

[Jiro]

omg! the hearies war! please go on.

 

[Beowulf]

I think what I'm seeing are some widely varied impressions of what a Deaf militant is, which probably explains confusion in both new people on the board and veterans. You seem to see the term as an externally defined pejorative, an insult referring to combative, violent behaviors of those who are against CIs in children, Beo seems to sees it as self-defined role as 'firebrand' and d/Deaf activist in general. And I've got some impression, probably based heavily on the individuals I know, one personally, some others more distantly, of those who self-identify as 'Deaf militants" as activists for a range of causes of benefit to the deaf community, not just armchair QBs, but who engage aggressively with organizations and legislative bodies.

But are there any deafies in the legislative bodies? Not a single one. I am dead set against hearing people making rules and standards for deaf people, so I guess that makes me a militant.

 

[AlleyCat]

You may not care what DC thinks, I happen to be interested. DC seems to have strong feelings that Marsden's and Lane's ideas on 'Deaf Militants' don't reflect what a Deaf militant is today. I'd like to know what she thinks defines a Deaf militant, and what role they and their actions play in our community, in our society.

Beo explained to me that he thinks we need this type of person actively engaging dialogue in public office.

I never said i didn't care what DC thought.